Rev.Fr.P A Philip

1.       What is the Church

2.       What is Faith

3.       Are we saved by faith or by faith and works? Doesn’t James contradict Paul?

4.       What is the religious basis of the Trinitarian doctrine?

5.       What is the Orthodox Church?

6.       What is so special about the Orthodox Church?

7.       How did different Churches originate?

8.       What are the main differences between the Churches

9.      Differences between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches?

10.   What are the main differences between Orthodox and Protestant Churches?

11.   Why our Church is called Malankara Orthodox Church?....................

12.   What is the Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church?

13.   How is it that the teaching concerning Jesus Christ led to divisions in the Church?

14.   Why should I pray?

15.   Why so many prayers ?

16.   Why do we face the East during our prayers?

17.   What is the principle underlying our prayers and worship service in general?

18.   What is the meaning of the offering of the incense in worship?

19.   Is the Bible sufficient by itself ?

20.   What the traditions are and why they are important ?

21.   What is the relevance of Old Testament in Christian faith?

22.   If God is omni-present, what is the need for Church?

23.   If God is Omniscient (knowing everything ), He knows everything including my needs. Then why should I pray?.........................

24.   Does God change His mind?

25.   Why would a loving God make a man, knowing that the man would reject God, and that God would then have to send the man to eternal damnation?

26.   What is sin?

27.   What is evil?

28.   When Did Satan Fall from Heaven?

29.   Do we have any biblical and other evidence for the observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day? ……………

30.   Are the days in Genesis, chapter one literal 24- hours days?

31.   Where does it say in the New Testament that offerings should go to the local Church?

32.   Is the celebration of Christmas a pagan ritual?

33.   What is Salvation?

34.   Is Jesus your personal Savior ?

35.   Where did Jesus go between His death and resurrection?

36.   What the Orthodox believe Concerning prayer for the dead?

37.   What is the sacrament of Confession then? What need is there for it?

38.   Should there be a special priesthood in the Church as all believers are priest?

39.   Based on St. Mathew 23:9, some people argue that it is wrong to call bishops and priests “fathers”. What answer can be given to these people?

40.   Why do priests wear black?

41.   Why do our Priests wear caps ( Thoppi)

42.   Why do we worship Cross ?

Part C

Social issues & Church

1.       What is the Orthodox stance on ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy, and how do you back it up?

2.       What is the problem with inter-caste or interfaith marriage?

3.       Is it sin to date?................

4.       How far can we go?

5.       What’s wrong with sex before marriage?

6.       Where in the Bible does it spell out that premarital sex is sin?

7.       Is it wrong for a girl to wear pants/ jeans?

8.       Is divorce permitted in the Church?............

9.       Is abortion sin?..............

10.   What does the bible say about tattoos? Or men getting  piercing?

11.   What is the Church’s stand on Smoking and Drinking?

12.   What is the Church’s view on Homosexuality?

13.   How to Behave In a Church?

FAITH AND PRACTICES OF THE CHURCH

1. What is the Church?

In very simple words, the Church is a community of men and women who are committed to a life of discipleship to Jesus Christ.

1.      Religion being a personal matter and, should as such, be conceived subjectively, why should the Church be a subject of concern for the Christian?

The goal of the Christian faith is not merely to lead individual persons to an experience of salvation and leave the rest of mankind and the world outside its concern. As we have noted, man/woman is not a pure individual person, but a social being. Born into a society, he/she grows into the human fullness through social interactions. Therefore, the salvation of the individual person calls for the salvation of the society as well. The Church as a community has the duty to work as much for the transformation of the individual as for that of the society. In fact ideally speaking, the Church of the transformed society, as the Christian is the transformed individual. Therefore the Church is a fundamental point in the Christian faith.

2.      Does this mean that the individual person is not important and can therefore be ignored or dismissed?

No, not at all. The individual person is indeed primary. It is in fact through the individual that noble ideas and ideals come to be expressed and memorable examples are shown forth. What is implied here, on the other hand, is that the transformation of the individual person is not enough. It should go with it the transformation of the society as well. Form this point of view man needs the society to be transformed, which the Church is intended to be. St. Peter calls his readers in the Church to realize this meaning in their lives. “come as living stones, he says, “and let yourself be used in building the spiritual temple …..” (See 1 Peter 2:5).

3.      Is this statement true of the Church in the world?

We have to acknowledge the paradox involved in the statement above. As a community in the world the Church is subject to most of the defects ascribable to other communities. Yet the Church has a faith centred in Jesus Christ and the means of grace sealed in the Holy Spirit. As a result of these facts, the Church may be to include a dimension of experience which other communities cannot give.

2. What is faith?

The biblical definition of faith is seen in Heb. 11:1. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Two meanings of the world ‘faith’ should be noted. In the first place, faith is an attitude of trusting in somebody. In the present instance it refers to our trusting in God. Jesus Christ gives the illustration of a child in relation to its mother (See Mathew 18:3; 19:14; Mark 10:15; and Luke 13:17). The child trusts its mother without the least reservation. In the same way, he says, we should have unquestioning faith in God. Secondly, faith is a normal statement like the Creed, in which the nature of our faith is recorded.

The sense of the word ‘faith’ in the first meaning noted above being personal and subjective, how can we speak of a faith of the Church?

The Church is a community of believing people. Their belief in God corresponds to the sense in which the Creed affirms his reality. The faith of the individual persons comprising the community and the statement of belief as it is recorded in the Creed, are both included in the expression ‘faith of the Church’.

1. What the need for faith?

Human nature is such that it does spontaneously seek refuge and protection from a source or sources believed to be capable of offering it. Born at a particular time, the human person lives in this world for a period of time and then passes from hence by death. During this transitory life man is not really the master of his existence, and he longs for assistance from God who, he believes, can give it all the time. Also, when he departs from this life he hopes to be with God who alone is beyond all earthly limitations. Thus faith gives man a foundation in life, whether in this world or in the world to come.

2. Why should the Church have faith?

The Church is a community which offers the ground for a life of faith to people, both as individual persons and in their community living. This enables them to live courageously holding to ideals on the one hand, and be witnesses in the world for faith on the other.

3.      How is the Church’s affirmation concerning God related to other emphases in its faith?

It is by affirming the reality of God that the Church views the world and life as a whole in its light. Therefore, faith in God is not merely the mental assent that God is there, but is the basis of a life that touches all aspects of our existence. Thus the faith of the Church regarding matters other than God is expected to be directly consistent with faith in God. The faith of the Church is a totality, in which God occupies the central place.

4. What is the value of the Church’s faith?

The value is to offer man a way of life which enables him to live without fear, but in hope and brotherly love.

3. Are we saved by faith or by faith and works? Doesn't James contradict Paul?

James 2 does ‘seem’ to contradict what Paul teaches. Both James and Paul (in Romans 4) start with Abraham, yet seem to arrive at completely different conclusions about how we are made right. Paul says we are justified by faith alone and James seems to say we are justified by faith and works (2:21, 24)!

However, the contradiction is really only a verbal one (logic calls this a "verbal fallacy"). James and Paul are both using the same words: faith and justification, but with different meanings.

·         "Faith" in James means "mental assent; an intellectual belief in the existence of God." You can see this in verses 14, 17, 19. The faith that James talks about is a faith that even the demons can have! James was the leader of the Messianic church in Jerusalem and so he uses terms in the same way the non-Messianic Jews in Jerusalem do. The Pharisees and rabbis in Jerusalem spoke of the assertion of monotheism and the mere intellectual assent to orthodox teaching as "having faith." Does this kind of faith save people? NO! And Paul would have agreed. Intellectual faith does NOT save anyone.

The kind of "faith", Paul talks about is "absolute trust; total dependence on God; being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised" (Romans 4:5, 18, 21). This is more than just intellectual faith! The difference between James' "faith" and Paul's use of the word is the difference between believing a parachute could save you if you jumped out of a plane (James) and actually jumping out of a plane and pulling the ripcord (Paul).

·         "Justified" is the other word that is being used differently. Paul is talking about being justified in God's sight (Romans 5:1). James is talking about being justified before men (James 2:18). "Don't tell me that you have faith, show me!" James says.

James gives the example of Abraham's offering of Isaac (Genesis 22). He says this action by Abraham was proof before men of Abraham's righteousness: "Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" (James 2:21). But James is quick to add that Abraham was made righteous before God some 30 years prior to this event: "Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness" (James 2:23; Genesis 15:6).

There is no contradiction between Paul and James when you realize that the one is talking about justification before God and one is talking about justification before men.

4. What is the religious basis of the Trinitarian doctrine?

We begin our prayers and public worship in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and ascribe glory to the same during the service on a number of occasions. This shows that we call on God as the eternal Father and with him the eternal Son and the eternal Spirit, in other words as the Holy Trinity.

1. How do we confess God as the Holy Trinity?

We confess that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Since God is one, do we mean by these words only that the one God has three names?

No, we mean that the one God is eternally Father, who has with him eternally the Son and the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Father is the eternally perfect God, who has with him the Son who is eternally born of him, and the Holy Spirit who comes forth eternally from him. Each of them is indeed perfect God, and the reality by which he is God, namely Godhead, is the same. Therefore, God is one, and the same is also three.

2. If they are three persons, are they not also three Gods?

The question is legitimate if we follow our usual logic. For us three persons are three separate human individuals. But, as we have already shown, we do not speak of God by using that logic. To illustrate the point further, God is the ground of all existence and existents, not one of the existents that constitutes the universe. For this reason, in talking of God, our language and logic should be different. Accordingly, we affirm that God, the ground of all existence, is one, and that the same God is also three. He is at once Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3.      What other implications can we draw from the affirmation that God is           triune?

We have shown that the three eternal persons have the same Godhead. To this should be added that they have the same authority, the same will, the same operation, and the same nature. The divine authority of the Father, for instance, is the same for the Son and the Holy Spirit. In willing and acting also they express the same energy.

5. What is the Orthodox Church?

The dictionary meaning of ‘Orthodox’ is ‘Conservative’, ‘strict in observances’, unwilling to change etc. This was not the original meaning when the word was actually coined by the Church in the 4^th century. The word Orthodox is the combination of two Greek words. “Ortho” and “Doxa” mean ‘Right Glory’ or correct worship. Orthos doxadzein was a Greek expression for rightly glorifying through the right doxologia, “Glory to be the father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit”. The Arian heretics had changed this doxology to suit their heresy – i.e., Only Father is God, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are merely creatures. The Arians thus changed the Doxology in to “Glory be to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.” This was not ascribing straight Glory to the Trinity. Orthodox is a term used to describe the original Church during the Ecumenical Synods to distinguish the Church from heretical sects like Arianism and Montanism.

The pillar and foundation of the Orthodox Church (The Oriental & Eastern Orthodox families) is the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God incarnate as a human being as testified by the Apostolic witness and teaching. The Orthodox Church deny any authority for one national Church over other national Church. The Orthodox Churches are unanimous in rejecting the claims of the Pope of Rome to have authority over anything other than the Western Church.

6. What is so special about the Orthodox Church?

Today the Orthodox Church -- fully aware that man is a union of body and soul -- uses all the beauty of creation to move her faithful children to prayer and worship: icons (holy pictures), beautiful singing, sweet-smelling incense, and majestic services.

Yet if the visible beauty of the Church is dazzling, her unseen beauty and glory are even more compelling, for the Orthodox Church is the Bride of Christ, and within her shelter we can begin to struggle for our salvation.

Orthodox Worship

The Greek word Orthodoxia means "correct praise" or "correct teaching" and in Orthodox worship the praise and teaching are closely interwoven. If you attentively follow the prayers and services of the Church, you can learn from them all her teachings and rich spiritual experience.

The services trace their beginnings back to the Old Testament rites of the Hebrews. They are a treasury of Scripture readings, prayers, hymns, and canons composed by the Saints and pious Christians throughout the ages.

Easter -- is the Feast of Feasts, the high-point of the Orthodox year. During Easter, the Church shines with the glory of Christ's resurrection. Clouds of fragrant incense accompany prayers heavenward; choirs and bells sing out the triumphant news; the faithful greet one another with the holy kiss of peace amid the greeting, "Christ is risen!" The altar doors are left open all week to show that the Gates of Paradise are opened by Christ for us sinners to enter in for eternal life and joy in heaven.

Sacred Tradition

Just as the Grace of the Holy Spirit which descended on the Apostles at Pentecost flows in a living stream down through today's bishops and priests, so Sacred Tradition carries the spiritual life of the Church in an unbroken stream from the time of the Apostles down to Orthodox believers today. Sacred Tradition includes the unwritten acts and teachings of Christ and the Apostles which the Church preserves unchanged for us all. (John 21:25; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2Thess. 3:6) The power of Sacred Tradition is the power of the Holy Spirit as it influences Orthodox Christians in all ages. Through Sacred Tradition we are in communion with the spiritual life of all preceding generations back to the Apostles.

Orthodox beliefs and Sacraments

We worship God in Trinity, glorifying equally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten before all ages, and that He is of one essence with the Father. We believe that Christ incarnate is truly man, like us in all respects except sin. We worship the Holy Spirit as Lord and Life-giver who proceeds from the Father.

We honor and venerate the saints and ask their intercession before God. Of the saints, Mary, the Mother of God, holds a special place “….more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim."

Baptism and Chrismation are the two sacraments essential to enter into the saving shelter of the Church. Baptism by triple immersion washes away our sins and restores the image of Adam. With Chrismation, we receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, becoming partakers of the fullness of Christ.

Sacrament of Holy Confession & the Holy Eucharist , we partake of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine for the remission of sins, the healing of body and soul, and for life eternal. Confession is the fourth essential sacrament for the life of all Christians. In confession, Christ gives us, through our father confessor, the forgiveness of the sins we commit after Baptism if we truly repent of them.

Ordination, Marriage, and Holy Unction complete the central Mysteries of Orthodoxy By the laying-on of hands, a bishop transmits Divine Grace to the person being ordained, linking him through the continuing flow of Grace that descended on the Apostles at Pentecost -to the uninterrupted succession of Orthodox clergy. Divine Grace sanctifies the union of two people in matrimony (Orthodox parish priests are usually married; bishops now come from the Church's monastic tradition.) The sacrament of Holy Unction heals infirmities of body and soul.

Church Symbols

Virtually everything you see in an Orthodox Church symbolizes and calls to mind some aspect of our meeting with eternal Divinity.

An Open Church. There are no pews or chairs in most Orthodox Churches. We stand during worship services out of reverence and humility before God. The absence of rigid pews gives us freedom to move about the Church and feel at home. We are free to venerate icons and light candles, as well as to bow and do the prostrations necessary at times during worship.

Candles. Candles burn on the altar, signify the light of truth given by the Lord, illuminating the world with spiritual radiance. Candles also symbolize our soul's burning love of God and the spiritual joy and triumph of the Church. Burning is sacrifice. It burns and becomes less and less. The principle of self-emptying is seen in candles.

The Sanctuary. Raised above the nave (body of the Church), the sanctuary is where the Church's consecrated clergy perform divine services. The altar in the center of the sanctuary is known as the Holy Throne because the Lord God Himself is present on it.

Icons. As a matter of fact the use of icons in our churches is very rare. Icons are an in separable part of Orthodox Spiritual life. Holy pictures draw you into the spiritual life of the Church like silent, ever-preaching sermons. Called icons, from the Greek word for image, the holy pictures of Christ, the saints, and martyrs have deep significance in Orthodox life.

Because the Son of God took on human flesh and became incarnate as the God-man Jesus Christ, it became possible to portray the glory of God incarnate. "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!" (Luke10:23). The icons' style may seem austere and strange at first; they do not depict the natural beauty of the material world, but the spiritual beauty of the Kingdom of Heaven. Icons are venerated, but not worshipped, by Orthodox Christians. Free from the subjective, sentimental, and fleshy quality of Western religious art, the true icon is part of the Church's Sacred Tradition. A true icon, painted through the power of the Holy Spirit, is in communion with the spiritual life of the Church back to its earliest days.

Because of the unity of Sacred Tradition, icons -- like Orthodoxy itself -- exist as unchanging and ageless windows into the spiritual world. As you gaze into an icon, the calm eye of eternal truth falls upon you. And you begin to realize the true beauty and order of all things visible and invisible.

7. How did different Churches originate ?

The Church was established by Jesus Christ as mentioned in St. Mathew 16:18.

Here the Church is the divine institution established on the faith confessed by St. Peter.

Believers were added on.

Later, we find St. Paul speaking against the other teachings which were contrary to the teachings of the Apostles.

Gal. 1:8. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell.”

The Orthodox Churches accepted whatever was taught by the apostles without any change.

From the beginning of Christianity, every church in a particular place was independent.

The first three ecumenical synods codified the faith and practices of the Church refuting the teachings of the heretics.

There was a controversy at the council of Chalcedon held on A.D. 451 regarding how the divine nature and human nature of Jesus Christ were united. Among the Churches which accepted the decisions of the Chalcedon council were the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern orthodox Churches such as the Greek Church and the Churches of the Byzantine tradition.

The Churches which did not agree with the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon are known as the Oriental orthodox Churches. They are:

i)                    The Antiochian or Syrian Orthodox Church

ii)                   The Armenian Orthodox Church

iii)                 The Coptic or Egyptian Orthodox Church

iv)                 The Ethiopian Orthodox Church

v)                  The Malankara Orthodox Church

Eventually, with the expansion of the Roman empire, the Roman Catholic Church claimed authority over other Churches which they did not agree. In the 11^th century (A.D. 1054) as a result of disagreement about the authority of the Roman Bishop, the Church split in to two parts: Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church added certain new doctrines and practices in the Church.

With the ‘Reformation’ of the 16^th century, the Protestants questioned the practices of the Roman Catholic Church forming new Churches in different countries known as the Protestant Churches.

A number of sectarian groups have evolved recently (Pentecostals, etc) without apostolic succession and apostolic faith as a result of individual interpretations of the Bible.

8. What are the main differences between the Churches

The Malankara Orthodox Church is in communion with other Oriental Orthodox Churches namely, the Syrian Orthodox Church, The Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian Orthodox Church and Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Also we have close relationship with the Eastern orthodox Churches of the Byzantine Tradition, such as the Greek, Russian, Rumenian Churches. Theologians have come to a consensus regarding the Christological controversies between these Churches. So, now we can say that the faith of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches is the same.

The Orthodox Church and the Protestant Churches differ mainly on the concept of the ‘Church’. To the Protestants and sectarian groups the Church is the fellowship of the living people only, but to the Orthodox Church, the Church is the communion of believers, both the living and the departed ones. In these days of ecumenism, we have better relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. But the areas of disagreement continue.

9. Differences between the Catholic Church and the     Oriental Orthodox Churches                  

a. Regarding the place of St. Peter

According to the faith of the Catholic Church St. Peter is the foundation stone of the Church. Therefore Peter has got authority over the whole Church.

In view of the Orthodox Churches, this position and authority are not given to one apostle only. The call to be the foundation of the Church is for all apostles. (Ephesians 2:20). The Orthodox Churches teach the following things regarding the foundation rock (Matt 16:18) and carrying the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt 16:19)

1. The Foundation Stone

1.      Christ is the real rock. “ the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4)

2.      Peter declared the faith of the apostles. Therefore rock is their faith. The Church is built on that.

3.      Peter is a believer who got faith. Therefore the Church is built of the rock, the believer.

2. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven

 The Key of the kingdom of heaven represent the authority to bind and loose (to forgive sins) (Matt 16:19) Jesus gave authority to bind and loose to all disciples equally (Matt 18:18; John 20:23)

b. Regarding the position of the Bishop of Rome

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bishop of Rome is the ambassador of Christ, the head of the whole visible church of Peter, and is the symbol of unity of the Church. Not only that it teaches that Pope has the supreme authority and he is infallibile.

The Orthodox Churches teach that all priests are ambassadors of Christ. Not only that Peter does not have any special right over the Church. Because, all apostles are equal as far as priestly rights are concerned. The believe that there is no need of a visible head for the whole church except Christ, and synods are the symbol of unity of the visible Church. The teach that the argument of the Catholic Church on the supreme authority of Peter and the infallibility of Pope are not in line with Christian principles.

c. Divine-human natures in Jesus Christ

The Catholic Church, according to the decision of the Chalcedon Council, gives emphais to the separate divine-human natures in Jesus Christ. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, not accepting the decision of the Chalcedon Council, give emphasis to the unity of divine-human natures in Jesus Christ.

d. Number of Universal Synods

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes 21 Universal Synods. The Oriental Orthodox Churches  recognize only the first three synods (Nices, Constantinople and Ephesus)

e. Addition of Filioque clause.

When the Catholic Church has added the words “from son also” in the Nicene creed regarding the proceeding of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), the Orthodox Churches do not accept this correction.

 f. Immaculate conception of St. Mary.

 The Catholic Church teaches the sinless birth of Virgin Mary. The Orthodox Churches do not accept this teaching.

g. Trans-Substantiation theory.

 The Catholic Church teaches as a dogma the Trans-Substantiation theory of the Holy Qurbana (According to them when the bread and wine change in to the Body and blood of Jesus Christ, the matter also changes). The Orthodox Churches do not believe in giving a scientific explanation as to how bread and wine are changed into body and blood of Jesus Christ, in the Holy Qurbana because the actions in the mystery of God cannot be explained scientifically.

10. What are the main differences between Orthodox and Protestant Churches?

1. When the protestant churches teach that the Bible with 66 books is the only basis of faith and practices, the Orthodox Churches teach that the Bible is part of tradition.
2. Most of the protestant groups oppose child baptism. Orthodox Churches practice it from ancient days.
3. The reformed groups do not accept the teaching regarding the Holy Qurbana that it is a sacrifice and become holy body and blood, and they do not accept prayer for the departed, intercession of the saints, confession before priest etc. The Orthodox Churches accept these.
4. As far as the administration is concerned, the Orthodox Churches give supremacy to the Episcopal Synod, whereas reformed Churches do not give any importance to it.
5. When Virgin Mary is called “the Mother of God” by the Orthodox Churches, Protestant Churches avoid calling her this name.
6. When Protestants consider the Church as a fellowship of the living believers, the Orthodox Churches teach that the Church includes all who have joined with Jesus Christ (living and departed).

11. Why our Church is called Malankara Orthodox Church? Why some people call us Jacobites?

‘Malankara’ is the place where St. Thomas the Apostle of Christ built his first Church after coming to India in 52 A.D. according to the tradition of the Church. From this name the ancient church in India was known  as the Malankara Church.

The term Orthodox is the combination of two Greek words, “Orthos” and “doxa” which means “right glory”. Our Church is Orthodox because it teaches the right faith, the pure and true faith.

Jacob Bardeaus (who died in 578 A.D) worked a lot to strengthen the Eastern Church in the Non-Chalcedonian faith.

Then the Roman Catholic Church nick-named the Eastern  Church as the Jacobite Church to show that our ancient Church was a new Church stared by Jacob Bardeaus. It is from this back-ground that some people called us Jacobites.

12. What is the Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church?

The Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church is that section of the historic St. Thomas’ Church which seeks to maintain an Eastern character of Christianity within the Indian context.

1.      What is the fundamental character of Eastern Christianity which our Church tries to conserve?

Eastern Christianity claims to have continued the tradition of the Church form its beginning in its genuine form, with in the life-setting of the East Mediterranean world. We have inherited it through our contacts with Churches of West Asia, whether of Persia or of Syria.

2. How does this character affect our Church in its everyday life?

It may be noted that Eastern Christianity does not seek to promote the idea of an administrative unity for the world Church. It does, however, maintain the unity of the communities in faith and life within different cultural and geographical areas. Administratively, Churches of the East are on the whole autocephalous and in many cases autonomous as well.

3. What do the words ‘autocephalous’ and ‘autonomous’ mean?

An autocephalous Church is a self-governing body under the leadership of its ecclesiastical head, say Patriarch or Catholicos, or even Archbishop or Metropolitan. Both words are derived from Greek roots. Etymologically, whereas ‘atocephalous’ means having its own head, ‘autonomous’ means having its own laws or individuality and selfhood. An autonomous Church is therefore both self governing and independent in life, worship and even traditions.

During the early centuries the Church spread in the Mediterranean and the West Asian world. In each of these regions the communities evolved its forms of worship and practices in life within the cultural and social setting of the concerned regions. This was in fact necessary because of the need for relevant communication. In this way there emerged differing traditions in Egypt, Syria, Rome, Persia, Greece, Armenia, Ethiopia, and so on. The Churches in these areas thus evolved into autonomous Christian communities.

4. Were all autonomous Churches autocephalous and vice versa?

No. The autonomous Churches were not in every case autocephalous. The Church of Ethiopia was autonomous from very early in its history, for it had its own forms of worship and church practices, but it became autocephalous by having its own Patriarch only in the last century. On the other hand, there are the Churches of Russia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, and so on. They are autocephalous, as each of them has its own ecclesiastical head. But they are not autonomous, because they do on the whole adopt the Byzantine forms of worship and other practices.

5. What is the status of our Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church? Is it                                        autonomous or autocephalous or both?

With the tradition of an apostolic foundation, our Church should be autonomous and autocephalous. But in our history we happened to pass through vicissitudes of various kinds, which led it to be dependent on Churches abroad. As it is, (With the establishment of Catholicate in 1912) our Church is autocephalous under the leadership of His Holiness our Catholicos, it is not yet fully autonomous, as we still follow the Antioachene Syrian forms of worship and Church practices almost invariably.

6. Should we endeavour to change them, and if so, why?

This is a large topic, which cannot be answered here adequately. We need say only that this worship and practices of the Syrian Church were all produced before the 13^th century against the background of a cultural and social setting which was very different from that of ours today. In any case, we have to translate the forms from Syriac into our language in order that they may be used in Churches. If we put a little more effort than we exert in producing translations, we shall be able to procure our own forms of worship more relevant and useful to the Indian context.

7. Does this not mean that we do not have to be ‘Syrian’ in order to be                    ‘Orthodox’?

Yes, precisely. What ever traditions and forms of worship which we have received from the Antiochene Syrian or other Churches should be examined by us on the basis of fundamental theological principles, our culture and living conditions, and adapt them to serve our need effectively.   

13. How is it that the teaching concerning Jesus Christ led to divisions in the Church?

The most important point which the Church sought to define theologically had reference to the question as to who Jesus Christ was. The issue had two aspects. The first, namely the fact that he was God the Son who became incarnate was settled in a more or less acceptable way during the 4^th century. The councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 were important landmarks in this movement. Then in the 5^th century the question how the incarnation was to be affirmed came up for serious discussion and settlement. The two councils of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451 took up the subject for decision. But by that time the Church had developed three traditions on the issue in three areas, namely Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. Men representing them could not agree on a formula, and this led two divisions in the Church and three ecclesiastical groupings from those times.

1. What are these groupings?

These are – i) The Church tradition which respects the teaching of the Antiochene Theological School represented by Nestorius; ii) The teaching of Church fathers who follow the tradition of the Alexandrine Theological School in opposition to the council of Chalcedon of 451; and iii) The tradition built up on the foundation of the doctrinal formula offered by the Council of Chalcedon.

2. How do these ecclesiastical groupings define the doctrine?

Each of them has its own technical language for affirming the doctrine. We need not go into them adequately here. In a general way we may state the positions something like this. The first insists that Jesus Christ is the one person, in whom God and Son and the man Jesus remain united. Though he is one person, the duality between God the Son and the man Jesus is preserved in such a way that the title ‘Mother of God’ with reference to Mary is not affirmed. The Second emphasizes the unity of Christ. Composed of the two natures of Godhead and manhood which continue in him without confusion or division, Jesus Christ is confessed to be the one incarnate nature of person of God the Son. Mary is indeed ‘the Mother of God’. The third maintains that Jesus Christ is one person made known in the two natures of Godhead and manhood. The expression ‘the Mother of God’ with reference to Mary is accepted.

14. Why should I pray?

Here are some reasons for prayer:

·         Because God, our Creator and King, commands us to pray. - Romans 12:12; Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17.

·         Because Christianity is not about religion, but relationship. Relationship requires communication. Sons talk to their Father. - Exodus 33:11; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 4:15-16.

·         Because we are weak and helpless and need much more than we have. - Psalm 54; Matthew 7:7-12; Philippians 4:6; James 5:13.

·         Because we are sinners and need a changed heart. - Psalm 51:10; Luke 18:9-14; James 5:16; Jude 20.

·         Because other people need God to do things in their life and we can pray for them. - Job 42:7-9; Luke 6:27-28; Colossians 1:9-12; 4:3

15. Why so many prayers?

Why do we have in our church so many prayers, isn't it in contradiction with Matthew. 6:7 - 6:15 ("But when praying, do not say the same thing over and over again...")?

There are a number of aspects to this question. Perhaps the one most applicable is the teaching of the fathers on the different "kinds" of prayer. In The Art of Prayer St. Theophan the Recluse (a Bishop in nineteenth century Russia) reiterates the teaching of earlier fathers concerning 3 kinds of prayer -1.Prayer with the lips. 2.Prayer with the mind, and 3.Prayer from the heart.

1. Prayer with the lips is simply the physical repetition of the words of the prayer. This by itself is empty. If we mindlessly repeat the words of prayer or if we just mindlessly "babble" spontaneous words, that prayer cannot be true prayer and pleasing to God. Prayer of this nature has at best no effect on the soul, however, it is more likely damaging to the soul because he who prays this way deceives himself and thinks that he is praying.

2. Prayer with the mind is the second "stage" of prayer and is (and should be) coupled with prayer of the lips. When we say a prayer, mentally or verbally, the mind should be wholly involved in the prayer. This is what the fathers call "attention" in prayer. It is the mind's involvement in concentrating on and attending to the words of the prayer. Prayer with the mind gives understanding and meaning to the prayer of the lips and these two together form most often the type of prayer that we offer to God and is beneficial but not yet perfect.

3. Prayer from the heart. Bodily prayer (as represented by prayer of the lips, but not limited to verbal expressions - making the sign of the cross for example) and mental prayer lack yet one element, and that is the heart. The heart, according to the teaching of the fathers is the seat of the soul and of all feelings and as such, must be involved in any prayer that we make. Just saying the words (lips) and understanding them (mind) is not enough - we also must mean them (heart). We are created with a dual nature, body and soul. The mind is the "lowest" part of the soul and the heart/spirit is the highest Perfect prayer must come from and involve our whole being - body, mind and heart. What the fathers refer to additionally as "prayer of the heart" is not this third type or stage of prayer, which is within our ability as creatures to offer to God by our own strength but rather it is a gift from God transforming our souls so that the heart continually prays to God not prompted by bodily or mental activity and thereby infuses the mind and body with prayer.

Part of the teaching of the Church about vain repetition in prayer is that the empty prayer such as mindless repetition or babbling of words should be avoided and is of no effect. And Jesus equates the prayers of the pagans with this "empty", "wordy" type of prayer. Notice how He does teach us to pray immediately after this instruction of how not to pray - "Our Father... ". Just the first words evoke the deepest, most personal of all natural feelings of the heart,- those of a child toward their parent, thereby immediately drawing not only the lips and the mind, but the heart as well into the prayer.

The most often cited "offending" prayer in this category is "Lord have mercy" which we seem to say over and over and over again. But (assuming this prayer is said with attention and feeling) is there any other prayer we could say? What else can we ask for from God except mercy? We certainly deserve nothing from God and so we ask for His mercy. We can't presume to know better than He what is most spiritually beneficial for anyone, not ourselves, not others and so we commit our prayers for others to the words, "Lord have mercy" knowing that by doing so we ask that God decide, in His mercy, what is to be done or provided in any given circumstance and then act according to what is needful for the salvation of each and every person for whom we pray. While the words of the prayer "Lord, have mercy" are the same, the context and meaning and intent of the words is never the same. "Lord, have mercy" is the universal prayer, it is applicable to any and every situation and it is the prayer we pray when we don't know how to pray.

When you consider only the words of our prayers, they remain generally the same, but that is only prayer with the lips. It is the prayer with the mind and heart that activate and enliven and give meaning to the words. If we pray for "the peace of the world" that can mean many things and we fill that petition with our intent and then ask not for this or that resolution to a particular conflict, but rather for God to act in His mercy, according to His perspective and knowledge and understanding of what is best for the salvation of the world and the establishment of the Kingdom of peace. If we pray for "those who are in captivity" again the words stay the same but the meaning can shift widely from who is in captivity to what we mean by captivity and again our request is not this or that specific resolution, but that God, who is all knowing and all seeing and is aware what the needs of each soul are, will act in this situation according to His mercy.

The teaching and experience of the Church about prayer is like a vast and deep ocean and we have described only a little shallow section of beach! To know more, one must experience the prayer of the church, in the context of all of the Christian faith and its practices.

16. Why do we face the East during our prayers?

Prayer facing the east is a strong tradition of the Church from the early period. It is biblically based. St. Mathew. 24:27: “For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

In its prayer, the Church awaits the second coming of the son of man from the east.

In St. Mathew 2:2, We read that in the birth of Jesus, signs were seen in the east.

Malchi 4:2. “ The Sun of justice shall arise from the east.”

Ezek 43:4. The glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east.

Ezek. 46:12. The gate facing the east shall be opened during worship.

There are references in the Apostolic Constitution, martyrdom of Polycarp and other patristic writings about the ancient church praying facing the east.

17. What is the principle underlying our prayer and worship service in general?

The question cannot be answered fully here, neither is it necessary. We shall give a brief comment on the prayer called Kauma, with which we begin our prayer and worship service always. It is offered in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, namely the triune God. The praises and prayers of the Kauma that follow immediately are addressed to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son. They are brought to an end with the barekmor. Though this Syriac word means ‘Lord bless’, in the context it is a request to the leader of the worship to start the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ that comes immediately thereafter. This prayer which our Lord himself has taught us addressed to the Father. Thus the prayers and praises addressed to the son come to an end, and the prayer addressed to the Father is begun, with the barekmor.

All prayers should thus begin in the name of the triune God, and by ascribing glory to him. Within the context of remembering God as the Holy Trinity, we praise the incarnate Son who has disclosed God’s love on the cross, and pray for his grace and mercy. All this is then summed up in the Lord ’s Prayer.

1. What about the ‘Hail Mary …’, which follows the Lord’s Prayer?

‘Hail Mary’ was not part of the Kauma even in the 13^th century when Gregory Bar Hebraeus lived and wrote. He includes the Kauma in no less than three of his books. The ‘Hail Mary’ is not included anywhere. This invocation addressed to St. Mary was added obviously later.

Granting this fact, we can find a meaning in the addition. Mary does in fact represent the human, created reality. While worshipping the triune God, Mary is remembered as one member of the human family, whom God the Son chose to be his vehicle for the incarnation. While seeking her intercessory prayers on our behalf, we express our solidarity with her in the human family.

2.      Are we expected to say the ‘Hail Mary’ whenever we pray the Kauma?

No, the usual custom in the Antiochene Syrian Church, from which we have taken over our practice, is to say the ‘Hail Mary’ only once, namely at the close of the prayer.

18. What is the meaning of the offering of the incense in worship?

  In the Bible we see that incense is used for the worship in heaven. Rev. 8:3,4. And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.” 

It is also found in the Old Testament worship.  Malachi. 1:11.”…. every place incense is offered to my name.”

Numbers 16:46-50. And Moses said to Aaron, Take your censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them.” Here offering of the incense is to get rid off the plage. It also removes the foul smell of sin.

Ps. 141:2. “Let my prayer be counted as incense.”

Heb. 9:4. “…. Having the golden altar of incense.”

Rev. 5:8. “… golden bowls full of incense which are the prayers of the saints.”

The worship of the Church is a heavenly worship and hence fragrant incense is used.

Mt. 2:11. …… They offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Ex. 35:8, 15. Spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense … this altar of incense.

Nehemiah. 13:5,9. . The frank incense is to be put……

Proverbs. 27:9ff. Oil and perfume make the heart glad.Ex. 40:26, 27. Put burnt fragrant incense upon it.

2 Chron. 2:4. dedicate it to him for the burning of incense.

1 Dings 9:25. Solomon offered the incense in the temple of God.

2 Chron. 2:6. it is the place to burn incense before God.

19. Is the Bible Sufficient by itself?

Isn't the Bible sufficient in and of itself without needing any help? What about the doctrine of sola scriptura?

To answer this question, I would like to intro­duce you to one of the heroes from the Church's past. His name is Saint Vincent of Lerins, and he lived and wrote in the fifth century. Like us, he had a deep and enduring love of the Holy Scrip­tures. (Isn't it a shame we modern Christians so easily assume that we are the only ones to have an interest in God's Word?) Listen for a moment to his discussion of how to determine true doctrine:

“I have often earnestly approached learned and holy men who knew Christian doctrine, asking how I can distinguish the truth of the catholic (universal) Faith from the falsehood of heresy. In almost every instance, they have told me that if I, or anyone else, want to detect heresy, avoid the traps set by heretics, and maintain the true Faith, I must, with the help of the Lord, reinforce my own belief with two things:

1) The authority of the Holy Scriptures;

2) The tradition of the Church.

At this point someone may wish to ask, "Since the canon of Scripture is complete and more than sufficient, what need is there to join the authority of the Church's interpreta­tion to it?" Good question. But there is a simple answer we all know if we think a moment: Because of the depth of the Scrip­tures, they are not interpreted in the same sense by everyone. One understands a text to mean one thing, and another thinks it means another. Sometimes it seems there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.... Consequently, because of the intricacies of all these heresies and incorrect doctrines, we must formulate our understanding of the writ­ings of the Apostles and prophets in harmony with the standards of ecclesiastical and ortho­dox interpretation.” (From The Commentaries, chapter 2, paraphrased by Fr. Jack N. Sparks).

Aside from the fact that this passage is so relevant to our contemporary scene it could have been written yesterday, Saint Vincent's work is vitally important because it so perfectly summarizes the need for tradi­tion in the earlier period of the Church-earlier that is, even than Saint Vincent. It was because of the count­less heresies seeking to pervert the Scriptures that Holy Tradition became so important!

Early "Scriptural" Heresies

Let's take a few steps farther back in time, starting in the first century, and listen to just a few of the heresies which started attacking the Church from her earliest times. To understand these heresies is to understand why the Church, from its inception, placed such a high degree of emphasis upon the role of Holy Tradition.

§ In the first century, the Cerinthians, a heretical cult, taught that the world was formed out of preexis­tent matter, possibly by angels. Jesus began His life as a mere man; the divine power descended upon Him at His baptism, and left Him before the crucifixion.

§ Also in the first century, the Ebionites taught that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary. The Holy Spirit came upon Him at, but not prior to, His baptism.

§ In the second century, the Gnostics came into prominence. They taught a wide array of philosophical and pseudo-Christian doctrines, saying, among other things, that there was a distinction between the God who created matter, and the supreme and unknowable Divine Being. The world was therefore imperfect and unspiritual. True knowledge of God could only be obtained through mystical "gnosis" or knowledge.

§ Also in the second century, the Marcionites taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the New Testament. Jesus, who didn't really have a physical, human body, came to over­throw this cruel god of law and violence.

§ In the third century, the Novatians, a harsh and legalistic sect, taught, in part, that the human soul was preexistent, and that Jesus' soul was united to Jesus, the Word, somewhere in time prior to His human incarnation.

§ Also in the third century, Sabellius taught that the Godhead did not consist of three distinct Persons, but that there was only a succession of modes or operations of one Person.

§ In the fourth century, the infamous heretic Arius taught that the Son was not equal to or of the same substance as the Father.

What a mess! And that is only to name portions of the teachings of just a few early heresies. Other than the fact that some of these groups differed as to what books they believed composed the Old and New Tes­tament, do you know one thing they all had in com­mon? Just like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses of our day, they all claimed adamantly that these misbegotten views were the true teaching of Scripture!

Setting the Record Straight

From the earliest period of the Church, going right back to the Apostles themselves, the true heroes of our Faith fought tooth and nail against such perversions. No one, not a single one of them, believed that the Bible needed additional help to somehow become God's Word. In view of the countless heresies attacking the Church from the beginning, all of them using Scripture to make their claims more palatable (in Saint Vincent's words, heretics sprinkle the perfume of heavenly language upon their doctrines, because they are "quite aware that the evil smell of their doc­trines will never be accepted if their nasty vapors are released undisguised"), it was sincere Christians who needed the help-desperately. There had to be some way to distinguish truth from error in those crucially formative years of the Church. One thing wouldn't work, for sure: letting everyone draw his own conclu­sions about what the Bible really meant!

One of the earliest and most important "yard­sticks" the early Christians used to determine precisely the core essentials of true doctrine was their baptismal formulations. What was it that catechumens coming for Christian baptism were proclaiming they believed? In the face of all that wrong doctrine, what were the essentials of the Church's saving and biblical Faith? Baptismal formulations-concise, carefully worded statements of faith (such as the Apostle's Creed, whose roots go back to the second century) -became one of the earliest forms of tradition. They were the Church's way of protecting new catechumens who came seeking salvation in Christ. Because of these baptismal creeds, the Church was able to say, "These are the essentials of apostolic teaching. This is how true Christians under­stand the Scriptures concerning vitally important points of belief. This is what you must believe to be a Chris­tian."

The teachings of men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, and Basil the Great concerning this subject. As one born "after the bomb," so to speak, someone whose only experience of biblical interpreta­tion has been that of the contemporary din of conflict­ing and contradictory opinions, this study has been like discovering a sweet oasis in the midst of a parched desert. Finally, I have found godly men who agree on the essentials of interpretation!

I will also say by way of summary that for these men, and in fact for all the great heroes of the early Church, the Scriptures were never looked upon as something to be stripped away and interpreted in isola­tion from the Church. That is what the heretics did. For early Christians, the Bible was most naturally under­stood in the context of the Church, that community of believers, both living and departed, who believed, taught, and, most importantly, worshiped in accor­dance with what the Apostles had received from the Lord Himself. For early Christians, that kind of faith­ful tradition, that "Rule of Faith," was the interpreta­tion of Scripture.

20. What the traditions are and why they are important?

Traditions are the faith and practices handed down through generations verbally and in writing. In the following passages we find how traditions were followed in the early Church.

2 Thess. 2:15. “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thess. 3:6. “…. You keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the traditions that you received from us”.

We are bound to hold fast the traditions transferred to us through the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Church Father and the Councils of the Church.

Now let us see the importance of traditions in the formation of the formation of the faith of the Church.

The Church was founded first and in the Church there evolved both the oral and written traditions. The Holy bible is a major part among the written traditions.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth as described by St. Paul. 1 Tim. 3:15 “But if I am delayed, this letter will let you know how we should conduct ourselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”

He does not say that the written scripture is the only pillar of the Truth. The Church considers the Bible as the touch-stone of Christian faith. The books of the New Testament are written in a period from A.D. 55 to A. D. 125, and before that the New Testament messages were transferred only through the oral traditions.

Christ did not write any book. The Lord did not even command to write a book. Christ and the Apostles used existing book of mosaic laws, prophetical writings and other writings of the Old Testament. In a latter period the written traditions of the Church were formed as the memory notes of the Apostles, faith of the Christian community, explanation to the scriptures, forms of worship prevailed in the community and solutions to problems which evolved in the Church. These traditions were formed both orally and by writing.

As we have seen, among the written traditions of the Church, the place of the New Testament is unique. ! Jn. 1:3”….. that which we have seen, and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us.”

Why Scripture alone cannot be the basis of Christian faith?

1. The Bible states that it is not full in itself.

Jn. 21:25. “But there are also many other things which Jesus did: were everyone of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Jn. 16:12.13. “I have got many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

2. Everything the Lord said was not written. We are obliged to obey the commandments of the apostles and their disciples in the written form. In the same way, we are obliged to obey the traditions taught by them in the Churches which they formed, nurtured and guided.
3. 1 Cor. 11:34 reads “About the other things I will give directions when I came. These directions given to the Church are the unwritten traditions of the Church.
4. Phil. 4:9 reads, “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Do; and the God of peace will be with you.” We have to do not only that which is written but also the heard and the seen.
5. The heard things are equally important as the life model.

2 Tim. 2:2. “…. And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.        

2 Tim. 1:13. “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

Heb. 2:1. “Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, best we drift away from it.”

6. 3 Jn. 1:13. “I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you (Gaus) soon, and we will talk together face to face.” Such talks are not recorded In the Bible, but can be seen in the Church in which Gaus practiced the same.
7. Col. 4:16. “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea. “ This letter to Laodicea is also lost.

The Church is the authority to interpret the Bible. The Church is expected to interpret the Bible in the light of the traditions complimentary to the Holy Scripture.

21. What is the relevance of Old Testament in Christian faith? Should Christians follow the Old Testament?

1. Jesus came not to abolish the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill them.

Mt. 5:17. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

2. Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the same God as well as a chosen people are mentioned. 1 Pet. 2:9. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation………” Ex. 19:6. “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation……”
3. Jesus learned the Old Testament.

Lk.2:46. “….. And it came to pass, and after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.”

4. Jesus taught the Old Testament.

Lk. 4:16-22. “…….he began to say unto them. This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth……..”

5. The Law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus.

Lk.24:44. “ and he said unto them, these are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”

6. Jesus has quoted from O.T.

Ps. 22:1. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken we?”

This prayer is repeated at the cross. Mk. 15:34.

7. The sacred book of the early church was the Old Testament.
8. The psalms and other Old Testament books helped for the worship and spiritual nourishment of the Church.
9. The Old Testament gave light to many of the ideas of the New Testament.

E.g.: New Isreal, Second Adam, messiah, the new commandment.

10. Heb. 1:1. “God spoke of old to the fathers in many and various ways…………,”

22. If God is Omni-present, what is the need for Church? (Should I go to Church?)

“And have them make a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them. In accordance with all that I show you concerning this pattern of the tabernacle and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.” (Ex. 25: 8-9)

Solomon Built the Temple of Jerusalem in the same model as the Tabernacle that Moses built. (I Kings 6)  1 kings 9:3. “………… I have consecrated this house which you have built put My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually.”

The presence of God is experienced in four different ways.

1. Universal Presence

The presence of God is in the whole universe both visible and invisible.

2. Promised Presence

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” (Matt 18:20)

3. Dedicatory Presence

The dedicatory presence of God is seen on Mount Sinai, (Ex.19) Tabernacle (Ex. 35) and Temple of Jerusalem (1 Kings 8) The church obtains this dedicatory presence through this avoiding of the Holy Mooron during the conservation of Church with its Old Testament basis of Jacob anointing the pillar in Bethel.

4. Eucharistic presence

The church obtains the redemptive presence of God through the Holy Qurbana      

      where God changes the Bread and Wine in to the Body and Blood of Jesus

     Christ.

All these four types of presence is not experienced in homes of any other prayer centres. It is experienced only in the church. Therefore it is very important to participate in the Holy services at the Church itself.

The Bible says “….your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. (St. Matt. 6:8) But God wants that we know what is good for others as well as for ourselves. God wants that our will should not incline towards evil, but desire the good with deep yearning. Prayer is therefore the way of training the will to desire good as well as of turning our wills towards the highest concentration of all good, namely God.

Prayer is thus a way of becoming good by using our freedom to turn towards the good and to will the good. By prayer we become like God. God is good and wills the good. We should also become like God in willing and desiring what is good. By communion with God we also learn to desire the good which God also desires.

Prayer is not to change the will or mind of God. In prayer we submit ourselves to accept the will of God. Therefore, a change occurs in our mind or will - a positive change to accept the will of God. This is why the man of prayer is never disappointed or depressed. Through prayer he conditions his mind to accept the will of God. As our heavenly father is a loving Father he always wills good for us, though sometimes outwardly look to be bad.

Prayer is often misunderstood as a monologue or a one-way traffic. In fact, it is a lively dialogue or conversation with God when we say something and God listens and vice versa. Listening to what God has to say is very important in prayer. The perfect model of prayer is Jesus’s prayer in Gathsamene. Even under unspeakable agony, he submits himself before the will of the father. “Not as I will, but as You will.” (matt. 26:39)

And our prayers should not be selfish. In prayer, the first focus is God. The second focus is other people. Only in the third place should we ask things for ourselves. In the Lord’s Prayer, the perfect model of prayer, all the first petitions are focused on God – His name, His kingdom, His will. This is the way our prayer also should be. We pray that God’s purposes may be established in the lives of all people; that evil may be banished from the earth, that all men live together in peace and justice praying God. Even in the prayers that ask for daily bread, for forgiveness and for protection from evil, the first person singular (I, me) is not used in the Lord’s Prayer. We ask things for ‘us’, for all men.

24. Does God change His mind?

How do you deal with the scriptures that say "God changed his mind". (As in jonah 3:10) Why would he need to if he is perfect and knows all things from beginning to end?

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of [or changed his mind concerning] the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Other passages are: Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:11; Psalm 106:45; Hosea 11:8; Joel 2:13.

Some people view these Scriptures as contradicting other statements like Malachi 3:6: I am the Lord, I change not or other passages like James 1:17 or 1 Samuel 15:29. This contradiction is not real, only apparent. In logic this is called a fallacy of equivocation, i.e. using a word which has two different meanings.

In one sense, God never changes in His character. However, God does change in his dealings with people. Take the example of the Ninevites in the Jonah passage quote above. God's character towards the Ninevites has not changed (Jonah 3:10). He is still the same holy and righteous God that He was before Jonah's preaching. But when the Ninevites changed, God's dealings with them must change. God decided not to punish them based on a change that happened in the people (e.g. Nineveh's repentant attitude). What changed were the people, not God's standards or God's nature.

So we may say that God's character never changes, but His dealings with men change as they change from ungodliness to godliness. When a man bicycling against the wind turns around and goes with the wind instead of going against it, the wind seems to change, although it is blowing just as it was before.

25. Why would a loving God make a man, knowing that the man would reject God, and that God would then have to send the man to eternal damnation?

There are some questions that just cannot be answered except from a Christian perspective. God is God (that's the definition of God) and He can do what He darn well pleases to do. The problem with Newagers and pagans (and some Christians) is that they try to create a god that is manageable, predictable, controllable, or intellectually graspable. But the very nature of ‘Godness’ is to be "un-" all of those things.

When Paul was asked this question he replied in the following manner:

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? -- Romans 9:20-24, (The New International Version, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House 1984).

Paul gives three answers to your question:

1.      God is creator and can do what He wants with His creations just as a potter does what he wants with his creations.

2.      Those who are not chosen have a purpose, i.e. to demonstrate God's wrath and make His power known (v. 22). -- It probably goes without saying that this will not sit well with humanists who see themselves as central to the universe.

3.      Those who are not chosen were created to make the riches of God's glory known to those to whom He is merciful (i.e., those of us who are chosen to be saved by the mercy of God). Mercy is revealed by contrast.

26. What is sin?

In the Greek language the word for sin is derived from a verbal root which means ‘to miss the mark’. In Syriac it means ‘to err’. We are created by God in order that we may reflect him by performing his will. But when we miss this goal in life, we are subject to sin. Thus we may say that all our thoughts, words and deeds in defiance of God or in violation of the rights and well-being of our fellow beings constitute sin.

1. Why is it that we fall into sin at all?

The root of all sin is self-assertion. Every human being, in fact every creature for that matter, is led by a longing for self-preservation, which lies at the back of his search for sufficiency in wealth and position, pleasure and recognition, and so on. This is not in itself wrong or sinful. But he/she often tries to gain his end by ignoring the divine dimension and neglecting his fellow beings. In other words, whether God and his plans are recognized or not, whether others also obtain a due share of the good things of life or not, man seeks them for himself and his kin. The selfishness which lies at the root of this kind of man’s life is the basis of sin.

2. Is not the violation of the commandments a sin?

Commandments themselves have been given with a view to inculcate in man love of God and love of man (Matt.22:35-40,) so that their real purpose is to restrain the selfish ways of man. Following the commandments is not the ultimate ideal of life for man, but it has a significant role to play in our lives. Thus by adhering to the commandments, we should develop in us a character which will express itself spontaneously to love God and love our fellows.

3. What is God’s attitude to man’s sin?

A sin is in fact a violation of God’s plan of life for man, and as such he does not think lightly of it. But as supreme Love, God seeks to liberate him from his sin and the evil which it causes.

27. What is evil?

The account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, as noted in the book of Genesis which the Church views respectfully, has an important point to make in answer to this question. It says that the allurement to sin, which leads to evil, suffering and death, results from the misdirected use of the divinely given faculties in us, in the realm of thought, word and deed.

1.      How is it that we who have been created by God express ourselves in misdirected ways?

As creatures we have two characteristics. On the one hand, we are ever dependent upon the Creator and our fellow creatures for our existence, life and growth, and on the other, we do as a rule tend to assert the creaturely gift of our autonomy, to the neglect of our fellow creatures and the Creator himself.

2. Does this mean that creature hood implies evil?

No, God created everything good (Genesis 1). Of all that God has made, man has rational powers so highly developed that it leads him either to recognize his dependence on God or to assert himself even against the Creator. The pride implied in the self assertion of man is the root cause of sin and evil in us. We tend to seek our own independence, without reference to God or to our fellow beings.

3        Is this not tantamount to saying that God has failed in creating man and the world?

It is true that in human terms there is a temporary failure ascribable to God, but that is not the final thing about God’s dealing with the world.

4.  What is the final thing?

It is the salvation of man and the world. To save man from a state of sin, evil and suffering is indeed the concern of God. He has expressed it in various ways through history and pre-eminently in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. What was done through him in this way and its culmination constitute the final thing.

28. When Did Satan Fall from Heaven?

The "turning" of Satan happened prior to Adam & Eve eating the fruit, since Satan tempts them against God. The Bible calls him the first sinner (1 John 3:8), so in the sense of a "moral fall," Satan morally fell prior to the temptation of Eve.

Concerning a "geographical fall," the issue is much more complicated. After Adam & Eve's fall, Satan still had access to God's throne in heaven. This is seen in his appearances before God with the other angels (see Job 1:6,12; 2:1,7). It is clear that Satan has no authority in heaven, but he can appear there and accuse the brethren (cf. Revelation 12:10). Although Satan doesn't have authority in heaven, he does have authority in the earth (Matthew 4:8-9; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12; 1 John 5:19).

The term "falling from heaven" is a Near Eastern way of saying that someone is suffering defeat. The term is used in non-biblical literature to describe the fall of gods from power It's like our term "falling from grace." We don't mean an actual change of geographic position, rather a change of power or relationship.

All of the passages that mention a fall of Satan are somewhat symbolic, so it is hard to know exactly how to take them. The four passages are:

·         Revelation 12:7-13

·         Luke 10:17-24

·         Isaiah 14:12-17

·         Ezekiel 28:11-19

Let me take them one at a time.

Revelation 12:7-13

Concerning the Revelation passage, it would seem that the woman spoken of is "The mother of God, St. Mary. She gives birth to the Messiah. It is clear that the child is the Messiah, because only Jesus is the one who is said to "rule the nations with a rod of iron" (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27; 19:15).

If John intended this prophecy as chronological, then the war in heaven (vv. 7-8) happens sometime between the birth and ascension of Christ (vv. 5-6) and before the second coming (v. 12). Either the war in heaven happened because of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, or it happened sometime between AD 30 and now, or it will happen sometime between now and the Second Coming.

But taking any prophecy chronologically is always iffy, unless the prophecy clearly says so. George Ladd in his commentary on Revelation says:

Here John employs apocalyptic mythological language to describe a spiritual fact. We misunderstand the character of John's thought if we try to place this heavenly battle somewhere in the stream of time. John is only concerned with the fact that Satan is defeated....The reference to Satan being 'hurled down' is only meant to describe Satan's actions against God's people losing their force. We are not to think of any actual change of domicile.

Luke 10:17-24

Now let's look at the Luke passage. Luke records Jesus' words: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18). Commentators have often tried to decide when in Jesus' thought this fall occurred. In this passage, the fall of Satan is connected with the return of his disciples from a short-term mission’s trip. The disciples were able to cast out demons. This is somewhat similar to the statement in Revelation: "They overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony" (Rev 12:11). The shed blood of Christ (The death of Jesus on the Cross) and his resurrection are the real means of victory over Satan. The secondary means of victory is the actions of Jesus' people.

Just as in Revelation the "fall of Satan" doesn't refer to any particular change of residence, but is a symbolic way of saying that he is being humbled and defeated by the actions of the apostles. This fits with Old Testament language regarding the fall of nations and kings.

Isaiah 14:12-17

Concerning the Isaiah passage, some people believe that Isaiah is giving a description of the fall of Satan (vv. 12, 15). But the passage clearly applies to the king of Babylon. I really don't see any legitimate reason to see Satan in the passage. It is the king of Babylon who suffers defeat and humiliation here.

Ezekiel 28:11-19

This is a prophecy concerning the king of Tyre (see verses 2 & 12). But the prophecy seems to go beyond the king of Tyre, because of the symbolic language. Ezekiel calls the king "a guardian cherub" and refers to Eden. What does this mean? Is this a veiled reference to Satan behind the king of Tyre?

The imagery keeps shifting. Some of it could refer to Satan, but some of it could also refer to Adam (in Eden, clothed only with precious stones around you, blameless until wickedness was found in you). And there are also symbols that seem to refer to the high priest of Israel (9 stones that are mentioned are among the 12 worn by the Jewish high priest, ordained to guard God's holy mountain, i.e. Jerusalem).

Whoever is being referred to here was "driven from the mount of God (Jerusalem), expelled from among the fiery stones, and thrown to the earth." Is the language just meant symbolically of the king of Tyre or is it a reference to some fall of Satan behind the king of Tyre?

Honestly, it's just not very clear. We can see Satan behind the king of Tyre, but all of the imagery doesn't seem to fit Satan (e.g., "through your widespread trade, you sinned" -- v. 16). Furthermore, you are still left with the question, when did this fall happen? Is this a third fall of Satan? If it is a fall of Satan, then when was Satan driven from Jerusalem (v. 16)!?

Therefore the conclusions are:

The Isaiah & Ezekiel passages have nothing to do with Satan.

·         The reference to Satan's fall is a symbolic way of describing some terrible humiliation and defeat (the defeat must be defined and understood from the context).

·         Based on that there have been a number of "falls" of Satan: the moral fall before Eve's temptation, Jesus' disciples on their mission trip, the death of Christ on the cross, the testimony of martyred saints.

Of course, that is just opinion. Now for things that are NOT just my opinion:

·         Jesus defeated Satan and all spiritual forces of evil at the cross (Colossians 2:14-15).

·         The testimony and work of Christians is helping to defeat Satan (Revelation 12:11).

·         Satan's ability to accuse us before God has been (or will be) limited (Revelation 12:10).

·         Satan will finally be defeated and his destiny is in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10; Matthew 25:41)!

29. Do we have any biblical and other evidence for the observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day? Why do we worship on Sunday? Is it necessary that we should worship on Sunday?

There are a number of scriptural and other evidences for the worship on Sunday and the observances of Sunday as the Lord’s Day.

The New Testament contains clear evidence that from a very early period the first day of the week was observed by Christians as a day of assembly for "the breaking of bread" and perhaps for the collection of freewill offerings. (Acts xx:7 and 1 Corinth xvi:2). Before the end of the 1st Century AD, the author of Revelation gave the first day its name of the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10).Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century describes how "on the day called Sunday" all town and country Christians assembled for instructions in holy writings, for prayer distribution of bread and wine, and the collection of alms. Tertullian declared that the Christians "made Sunday a day of joy, but for other reasons that to adore the sun which was not part of their religion.  The emperor Constantine (d. 337), a convert to Christianity, introduced the first civil legislation concerning Sunday in 321, when he decreed that all work should cease on Sunday, except that farmers could work if necessary. This law, aimed at providing time for worship, was followed later in the same century and in subsequent centuries by further restrictions on Sunday activities.

• AD 90-120, THE DIDACHE: "But on the Lord's own [day] assemble and break bread, and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache, also called The Teaching of the Apostles, 14).
• AD 74-132, EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (The Letter of Barnabas, 15:6-8)
• AD 150, EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES.- I [Christ] have come into being on the eighth day which is the day of the Lord. (Epistle of the Apostles, 18)
• AD 150, JUSTIN MARTYR: And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or a rural district. (There follows an account of a Christian worship service, which is quoted in VII.2.) We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. (First Apology of Justin, 1, 67:1-3, 7)
• AD 150, JUSTIN MARTYR: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our savior on the same day rose from the dead. (First Apology of Justin, Ch 68)
• AD 200, TERTULLIAN: "We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath" (Tertullian's Apology, Ch 16)
• AD 220, ORIGEN: "On Sunday none of the actions of the world should be done. If then, you abstain from all the works of this world and keep yourselves free for spiritual things, go to church, listen to the readings and divine homilies, meditate on heavenly things. (Homil. 23 in Numeros 4, PG 12:749)
• AD 225, THE DIDASCALIA: "The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2).
• AD 250, CYPRIAN: The eight day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day." (Epistle 58, Sec 4)
• AD 345, ATHANASIUS: "The sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord's day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord's day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3).
• AD 350, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: "Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37).
• AD 400, THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS: And since He was crucified on the day of the Preparation, and rose again at break of day on the Lord's day, the scripture was fulfilled which saith, "Arise, O God; judge the earth: for Thou shalt have an inheritance in all the nations. (Apostolic Constitutions, Book 5, Chapter 19)
• Every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the resurrection... (Apostolic Constitutions, Book 5, Chapter 20)

30. Are the days in Genesis, chapter one literal 24-hour days?

The word "day" (yom in Hebrew) is used the same way that our word "day" is used. It has a very specific meaning of 24 hours, but then is also used in a figurative sense as days of Pontius Pilate the days of the Nazis, to indicate a period of time. Phrases in the Bible that use this sense are "day of the Lord," " King Solomon's day," etc.

The argument for Genesis 1 meaning a literal day is that:

1.      It is the most natural and common meaning of the word "day."

2.      The phrase "and there was evening and morning, one day" certainly shows a literal day is intended. (The Jewish day was marked as beginning with sundown.)

3.      Adam's age given in Genesis 5:3,5. The age of Adam is given from when he was first created. If day six (when he was created) and day seven (when God rested) were geological ages or long periods of time then the math is way off.

4.      Exodus 20:8-11 where God interprets the days of the creation week as being normal 24 hour days.

5.      The nature of the Genesis passage which is given as straight history, not poetry (compare with Jesus' reference to Genesis 1 & 2 which shows he viewed it as historical -- Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8). If Genesis 1 was in Hebrew poetic style then we would have reason to view the "days" as symbol or poetic, but Genesis is straight history throughout.

You can be a person who believes in the Bible as God's Word and believes that Genesis is historical and believe that the days in Genesis 1 are geological ages, not 24-hour days. There are many conservative scholars who hold to a non-24 hour day view of Genesis 1. We have many Christians in our church body who believe this way. I don't think this is the most natural meaning of the text and I suspect that in most cases this is an attempt to mesh Genesis 1 with the present scientific view.

But even before Darwin there were theologians who held a non-24 hour day. Augustine was one of them. These scholars were rare, however. I believe a non-24 hour day view is against most of the historic church confessions, such as the Westminster Confession (WCF I:9; IV:1; XXI:7; L.C. 15; L.C. 116; L.C. 120; S.C. 9; S.C. 58,59). Of course, the most important thing is whether or not it has an exegetical basis in Scripture.

There are certain lacunas in calculating days in creation as ‘the Sun, whose revolution determines day and night, was created on the forth day only!!

31. Where does it say in the New Testament that offerings should go to the local church?

In the Old Testament, in Malachi 3:10, God says that He wants the tithe brought to the "storehouse". The closest equivalent to the "storehouse" in our day would be the local church.

Are there any New Testament Scriptures which show where offerings were to go? The key Scriptures in the New Testament that I know of are in Acts 4:34-37 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.

The Acts passage tells us that offerings were brought and "placed at the apostles' feet" and then distributed by the church as a body.

The Corinthians passage tells us about a collection being gathered for the believers in Jerusalem. The Corinthians are told to bring their offerings on each Sunday to their meeting place, so that when Paul arrives he will not have to wait to receive everyone's individual collection.

The New Testament pattern seems consistent with the Old Testament pattern, i.e. offerings were brought to a central location and decisions were then made by the collective church or by church officers concerning how to distribute the funds.

32. Is the celebration of Christmas a pagan ritual?

There's no command in the Bible to celebrate Jesus' birthday. There's nothing in the Bible that would even indicate that Jesus was born on December 25. Then why do we celebrate it on 25^th December?

It just so happens that on the twenty-fifth of December in the Roman Empire there was a pagan holiday that was linked to mystery religions; the pagans celebrated their festival on December 25.  The Christians didn't want to participate in that, and so they said, "While everybody else is celebrating this pagan thing, we're going to have our own celebration. we're going to celebrate the thing that's most important in our lives, the incarnation of God, the birth of Jesus Christ. So this is going to be a time of joyous festivities, of celebration and worship of our God and King." (Opinion of Theologian R.C. Sproul)

I can't think of anything more pleasing to Christ than the church celebrating his birthday every year.  Keep in mind that the whole principle of annual festival and celebration is deeply rooted in ancient Jewish tradition.  In the Old Testament, for example, there were times when God emphatically commanded the people to remember certain events with annual celebrations. While the New Testament doesn't require that we celebrate Christmas every year, I certainly see nothing wrong with the church's entering into this joyous time of celebrating the Incarnation, which is the dividing point of all human history.  Originally, the celebration of Christmas by the Christians was intended to honor, not Mithras or any of the other mystery religion cults, but the birth of our King.

33. What is Salvation?

In the passage from Paul’s epistle to the Romans, the apostle employs the word ‘reconciliation’. He says that “while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”. The emphasis here is that by sin we become estranged from God, so that a restoration to relationship with him is necessary for us. By the death of Christ God has effected this reconciliation for his side. Christ accepted rejection by the human race, and proclaimed on the cross God’s forgiveness. To be reconciled to God is salvation, which enables us to realize peace with God and with our fellow beings.

Salvation is the redemption from sin, and growth to perfection in the image  of God. According to the Bible, salvation involves the past, the present and the future.

As a Christian, my answer to the question is: “I am saved, I am being saved and I will be saved.” Let me quote the relevant verses from the Bible.

a.       Past: Eph.2:8. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

b.      Present: 1 Cor. 1:18. “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.” Also see Acts. 2:47

c.       Future: Heb. 9:28. “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him. He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Also see Mk. 13:13.

34. Is Jesus your personal Savior?

I was always taught to think of Jesus as my "personal savior." Is this view based on scripture and Christian tradition? What is the relationship of the individual believer to Jesus? How does it work?

In the Orthodox Church the understanding is much more organic than in the Protestant confessions. In Protestantism, the individual is saved by a personal (meaning relating to me alone) action of God and the Church is the collection of all of those saved individuals. Salvation is an individual state, according to this view. The Orthodox Faith teaches us that salvation is not individual but corporate - the whole Church is saved together and apart from the Church we cannot be saved. The conversion experience as a "saving act" is not a part of Orthodox faith - rather this conversion experience (accomplished by baptism, btw) is only the door into the saving ark of the Church. Jesus by His death and (more importantly) resurrection has defeated sin death and the devil and has unlocked the door to paradise (it had been closed against fallen man and guarded by an angel with a flaming sword) and leads us in. Will we follow? - That is what "salvation" is all about; following Christ into paradise.

The words individual and personal bring up another interesting and important aspect. Within Orthodox teaching we can say that Jesus is our personal Savior in that He takes individuals (a being that is independent and separated from all others) and makes them persons (a separate being that is united to other beings in a larger whole, in this case the Church) This contrast between individuals and persons is a little bit of an extrapolation from the doctrine of the Trinity. We worship One God (individual) in three persons. Similarly there is only One Church (individual) which is made of many persons. The emphasis on individuality in western and especially American culture is in this sense anti-Christian and derives from and incorrect understanding of the Church which is the result of the reformation in Western Europe and the resulting theology which had to justify salvation apart from the Church. We must remember that salvation is corporate - the whole Church is saved together and will be presented as a single entity as the Bride of Christ (there is only one Bride - Jesus is not a polygamist) at the 2nd coming. Our individual judgment is not whether we are saved or not, but rather we are part of the Church and following Christ. If we are part of the Church following Christ then we are saved along with the whole Church but if we cease to follow Christ and separate ourselves from the Church by placing our own judgment and will as higher and more important than that of the Church, then we are not saved because we have "jumped out of the ark".

What does it mean to ask in Jesus' name?

How do you deal with the Scripture that says: "Ask for whatever you desire in Jesus' name and I will give it to you?"

I believe that the phrase "in Jesus' name" is vastly misunderstood. It is more than just a phrase that the Protestants tack on to the end of their prayers. (All the prayers in the Orthodox Church are concluded with ascribing glory and honour to the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit).

"In Jesus' name" is ambassador language. It implies that (1) I have a relationship with Jesus; (2) I am acting as His representative on His behalf, and (3) that what I am asking for is truly Jesus' desire (1 John 5:14). If these things are true, then God will grant the request. That's a promise.

Many requests that we make to God in prayer are legitimate and fine requests -- and God grants many of them. But most of our requests do not meet the three criteria that I have just mentioned and therefore are not requests made "in Jesus' name."

35. Where did Jesus go between His death and resurrection?

What can we say for certain about Jesus' location? Jesus said to the repentant thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). So the question is: "Where was paradise?"

Where Was Paradise

This isn't as easy to answer as we would think. The problem is that there is no agreement in the writings of the Jewish people about "paradise." Both before, during, and after Jesus' time, the term "paradise" has different locations and includes different people. Sometimes it is located in the distant East; sometimes identified with the third heaven; sometimes located on the perimeters of the circle of the earth-like a Greek view of the Elysian Fields. Sometimes it is talked about as a compartment of Hades (Hades being the place where all dead people went), that is, the happy side of Sheol where the righteous went upon death. Sometimes it is the home of the specially privileged few, the abode of those who haven't seen death, like Enoch & Elijah. What can we say for certain? If we go by Jewish literature, we can't say much with any certainty. The only agreement is this: it is the place of the righteous after death.

Key Passages

So what does the Bible say about where Jesus went and what he did between His death and resurrection? These are the key Scriptures that for reference are:

·         Concerning the Old Testament saints - 1 Samuel 28:3,13-15; Luke 16:19-31.

·         Concerning Jesus' location and activities - Luke 23:43,46; Acts 2:24; John 20:17; 1 Peter 3:18-19.

·         Scriptures that equate paradise with heaven - 2 Corinthians 12:2,4; Revelation 2:7.

·         Scriptures that (in my opinion) are taken out of context and don't apply - Ephesians 4:8-10; 1 Peter 4:6.

Two Acceptable Views

The two orthodox views of Jesus' location and what He did are the following:

1.      Paradise was (and still is) the third heaven - the place where God's throne room is located - just as 2 Cor 12:2,4 and Rev 2:7 teach. Jesus committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and His spirit went to where the Father was. On Sunday God reunited Jesus' spirit with His resurrected body - just as ours will be.

1 Peter 3:18-19 should be interpreted as the Spirit of Jesus preaching to the wicked people of Noah’s generation before flood, who in Peter's day were in Hades ("prison").

 The strength of this view is that it is straightforward and uncomplicated. It follows the same pattern that all Christians will follow: our spirit goes to the Father, it remains with the Father until it is reunited with our bodies at our resurrection.

2.      Paradise was a compartment in Hades. Hades was the place where all the dead went before the resurrection of Christ. The wicked went to a place of torment (Luke 16:22-23). The righteous went to "paradise," also called "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:22), where they were conscious and were "comforted" (Luke 16:25). According to this view, when Jesus died His spirit went to the place in Hades where the righteous were.

Why did Jesus go to Hades? To proclaim His victory to disobedient "spirits in prison," either human or demonic (1 Peter 3:18-22). He did this, however, while actually staying in the paradise precincts. At some point - either the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:50-53) or the resurrection of Jesus or the ascension of Jesus - Abraham's Bosom was emptied and all the Old Testament saints were led into heaven. Heaven is now the new location of paradise (2 Cor 12:2,4; Rev 2:7). After the taking of the righteous to heaven there is only one area of hell left, the place of torment. The unrighteous dead await final judgment in Hades, when Hades will be cast into the "lake of fire" (Rev 20:14), or "hell."

According to this view, the meaning of the phrase "He descended into hell" is that Jesus' body died and though His body was still on earth in a tomb, His spirit literally descended into Hades. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that Jesus' humiliation consisted of, among other things, receiving "the wrath of God and the cursed death of the cross, in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time. "The Larger Catechism, with it's larger answer puts it, "Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of death, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been expressed in the words, He descended into hell."

Where was Jesus' spirit and what did He do? We aren't given a lot of clear information - just as we aren't told where Jesus is between resurrection appearances. In my opinion, the evidence is so scanty that we can't be dogmatic. Either of the above views has been considered orthodoxy by the Christian church, although one denomination may embrace one view or the other.

Both views agree that heaven and paradise are now the same place and that this is where the souls of dying believers immediately go to be with Christ (2 Cor 5:6-8; Phil 1:23-24). We can be unified on this point.

36. What the Orthodox believe concerning prayer for the dead?

"If I may respectfully ask, in what sense do the Orthodox pray for the souls of the departed? As you know, this is not a practice within Protestantism."

Those who depart this life in faith as members of the Church will continue with Christ (see Phil 1:23). The Church has in fact the two parts of those who continue on earth and those who have passed from hence. Theologians refer to them as the Church militant and the Church triumphant respectively. The former has to fight the battle on the earthly plane, but those who have left the world have triumphed over the battle.

You ask in what sense do we pray for the souls of the departed. Why, in the same sense that we pray for the souls of those with us because Christ is Risen, trampling down death by death. The barrier between living and dead has been eliminated due to the Resurrection of Christ. Those who are departed are just as much with us and just as much a part of the Church as those who we see living on this earth. There is no longer any separation. And so not only do we pray for them, but they also pray for us; in the same way that you might ask your friends to pray for you and in turn pray for them so also do we pray for each other without concern for the separation of death.

When we pray for either the living or the dead we use the same prayer: "Lord have mercy", to express our desires. We do not know what to pray for even for those with whom we live because only God knows what is best for our salvation, and so we say "Lord have mercy". Likewise we do not know the needs and concerns of the departed, but God does and trusting in His knowledge we say, "Lord have mercy"

We do know that, like all of us, those who have departed require forgiveness of sins, and that they look for a "place of rest" in the bosom of Christ and so we make this petition, that God will provide these things, but again as for specifics about how this should happen we simply conclude with "Lord have mercy".

Some of the confusion might occur in that most Protestant confessions teach that the judgment after death determines the eternal state of the soul. Not so, according to the Tradition and teaching of the Orthodox Faith. The particular judgment immediately after death only determines the state and "residence" of the soul in the spiritual world and that judgment is based on who our spiritual "friends" are. Do we have more converse with angels or demons? Do we devote ourselves more to the saints or to sinners? Are we attached to the world or to the Kingdom of God? Do we act like Satan or Christ? Whatever we are like, there we are placed in the spiritual world. And the demons are diligent in attempting to demonstrate that we are tied to them and not to Christ and so any and every sin not confessed, no matter how seemingly small and insignificant is brought out by them as accusations against us and the angels on the other hand counter this accusation by a description of our righteous deeds which indicate our change of heart and life. But do not confuse this particular judgment and temporary disposition with the eternal disposition of the soul to be determined at the Great Judgment. Then, the soul being reunited with the body thanks to the general resurrection, each person will be judged by God Who sees within either the spark of grace or none and those who have that spark will be brought into the Kingdom of God and those who do not will be cast into outer darkness - finally and eternally. So you see that when we pray for the departed, we do so knowing that the final judgment has not yet occurred and while we don't know what the exact needs of the departed are, we can simply lift them up to God calling out for His mercy.

37. What is the sacrament of Confession then? What need is there for it?

In a word, Confession is the sacrament of penitence.

A Christian has taken the vow in baptism of abandoning Satan and his works on the one hand, and of accepting Christ and his ways on the other. This means that he is called upon to lead a life of faith, keeping to the ideals of honesty, dependability, purity and nobility, in thought, word and deed. By such a life he will attain to a sense of self-fulfillment in himself and be enabled to exert his influence in the world for its moral progress. However, the fact is that this goal is seldom reached by us, tempted ever as we are to seek our own private good to the neglect of the good of other, or to lead a life of unhealthy pleasure to the neglect of fulfilling our duties. In the face of this reality about us, the Church provides for sacrament of penitence to help us in our moral and spiritual growth.

1. How shall we take advantage of this provision?

This is not a difficult task to perform. First of all, we must have a sense of responsibility regarding ourselves. Holding to it, we should examine ourselves periodically and see whether we do really fulfill it. Whenever we realize that we fall short of the mark, we should ask for divine help to improve ourselves. Repenting of our sins in thought, word and deed, we confess them to the priest and receive from him the absolution that comes from God alone.

2. Why should we confess our sins before a priest?

Our Lord gave the authority to forgive sins to the bishops and priests through His apostles.

Mt. 18:18. “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jn. 20:22, 23. “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any they are retained.”

To receive forgiveness of sins we have to confess our sins before the priests. Confession is a process of repentance and admission of sins committed either by word, thought or action with a promise not to commit them again. The confession is a sacrament of giving absolution by a priest, of sins confessed by a penitent. Confession is always the prayer before God in the presence of a human witness in the Holy Bible. For example, Achan was asked to confess his sins before God not hiding it form Joshua.

Confession is meant for a thorough change turning from evil ways to God. It is the experience of a penitent admitting with a contrite heart to God that he or she sinned against God.

King David confessed his sins to the prophet Nathan, the servant of Jehovah, and Nathan conveyed to King David the absolution of his sins by God.

2 Sam. 12:13. “And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David. The Lord also hath put away thy sin, thou shall not die.”

Confession is a process of repentance and admission of sins committed either be word, thought or action with a promise not to commit them again. The confession is a sacrament of giving absolution by a priest, of sins confessed be a penitent. Confession has the following salient features:

Confession is a process of turning away from evil ways to God.

Ezek. 33:11. “Say unto them, As a live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O home of Israel?”

Confession is the experience of a penitent admitting with a contrite heart to God that he or she sinned against God.

Ps. 51:4. “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when though judgest.”

Achan confessed his sins to Prophet Joshua.

Joshua 7:19. “ And Joshua sail unto Achan, My son, give I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Isreal, and make confession unto him, and tell me now what thou hast done, hide it or not form me.” It is also an opportunity to get counsel and advice from the priest. The Bible says that one should consult the priest to learn from him.

Malachi 2:7. “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” Through holy confession the priest is enabled to pray for the penitent more meaningfully.

A priest has authority form God to absolve sins, which power he received through the apostolic succession.

Jn. 20:23. “Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

Priests are the ambassadors of God making people reconcile to a God.

2 Cor. 5:20. “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.”

Christ had asked the lepers whom he cured to show themselves to the priests. Christ had respected the Priests.

Lk. 17:14. “And when he saw them, he said unto them, go show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.”

Confession is also a promise that a penitent undertakes not to commit sins at all.

Priests never disclose the matters confessed. Priests can be the best counselors too being men of God and a sacramental presence in the society.

3. Can’t we obtain the absolution from God, without confessing to a priest?

The Church does not, in fact, deny that we can. What it does, on the other hand, is to provide for the sacrament as a concrete means, whereby its members may receive the consolation which they need. If we use this provision, we shall find it to be spiritually and psychologically edifying and efficient way of getting rid of our guilt feeling in the past and of our wrong ways in life in the future.

4.      Why is it that Confession is considered a pre-requisite for receiving communion?

There is a lot of misunderstanding on this point. The truth of the matter is that Confession is not so considered. On the other hand, the real emphasis of the Church is that we should prepare ourselves spiritually in order to receive the Holy Qurbana.

5. Should confession be out loud?

- 1 John 1:9 states, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

The question arises is "Are we to speak our confession out loud."

The Greek word was typically used for a public confession. This sense comes out clearly in Matthew 10:32 and Romans 10:9 where it talks about the need to publicly profess Jesus or He will not publicly profess us before the Father. In secular literature the word was used to confess to a crime, i.e. to admit guilt in a court of law (which would have been verbal). Vine's Expository Dictionary defines it as "to speak..." and "to declare openly..."

Perhaps even more important is the Old Testament pattern of the Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30; 8:14-17; 16:3-22) and the Trespass Offering (Leviticus 5:14-6:7; 7:1-6) which were used to atone for specific transgressions. A bull, goat or ram was brought to the priest. The worshipper laid his two hands on the head of the animal (signifying that his sin was transferred to the animal) and then confessed his sin to the priest. The confession would be something like this one found in the Mishnah: "O Lord, I have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before you, I and my house. O Lord, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which I have done by committing iniquity, transgression, and sin before you, I and my house. As it is written in the Torah of Moses, your servant, 'For on this day shall atonement be made for you to clean you. From all your sins shall you be clean before the Lord (Leviticus. 16:30).'" Following this public confession, the priest then sacrificed the animal.

This idea of verbal confession continues in the New Testament where we are told to "confess our sins to one another" (James 5:16).

I think the pattern is pretty clear that (generally speaking) confessions ought to be made to someone. This creates a humble, confessing community living in the grace of God.

38. Should there be a special priesthood in the Church as all believers are priests?

According to 1 Peter 2:9, we all have general priesthood. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. ”But, to act as the representatives or symbol of Jesus Christ, special commission from Jesus Christ is necessary. For example the authority to celebrate the holy Eucharist was given only to the selected twelve disciples can also celebrate the Holy Eucharist as chief celebrants.

Our Lord gave the authority to forgive sins. (John. 20:23) and so the disciples were given special grace to forgive sins.

In fact the relationship existed between Jesus Christ and the disciples are the one he expects to have between the priests and other members of the congregation.

We find that special gifts are given for special ministry. 1 Cor. 12:29, 30. “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing…..?”

39. Based on St. Mathew 23:9, some people argue that it is wrong to call bishops and priests “fathers”. What answer can be given to these people?

Bishops and priests are representatives of God, and hence they are spiritual fathers. When the Lord objected to call ‘father’ He did not mean it in the literal sense.

Here the Lord forbids people calling ‘ fathers’ to stop craving for respectful names like ‘Father’ in search of worldly glory forgetting the Heavenly father. It was in the context of Scribes and Pharisees craving for such name that our Lord said this.

St. Paul also did not take it in the literal sense. We see St. Paul claims himself to be the spiritual father as he has spiritually begotten the Corinthian Church. (1 Cor. 4:15). “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers”.

Also St. Paul speaks of Timothy as his “true child in faith” (1 Tim. 1:2)

Hence it is right to call bishops and priest ‘fathers’. Moreover, this term reminds the bishops and priests of their fatherly duties.

40. Why do priests wear black?

Where the custom of wearing black cassocks comes from? Why do priests wear cassocks and why are they black, which is not the colour of joy and hope?

 

Over the centuries Church clerics were required to wear distinctive garb to identify them as ordained clergy. In the early Church, no distinctive garb seems to have been worn, except of course liturgical vestments, which in some cases were also worn outside the celebration of sacraments. For instance, sometimes bishops and priests wore the chasuble like regular clothing, as did the deacons with the dalmatic.

Naturally, in the first centuries of Christianity (for over four centuries) priests wore the same clothes as ordinary people. The tunics were normal clothes. When it was fashionable to wear shorter robes some priests kept tunics, and thus they stood out from other people. The Synod of Braga, AD 572, ordered priests to wear different clothes when they went out. The tradition of wearing cassocks was established over a very long period. In those times men used to wear robes, especially the gentry liked wearing long dresses: the zupan (a long coat lined with cloth of gold) and the kontusz (an overcoat with split sleeves) and belts. The clerical clothing was established in the 17th and the 18th centuries. The colour of the cassock was connected with the hierarchy of clergy, which has remained up till now: the pope wears a white cassock, cardinals wear red (scarlet) ones, bishops wear amaranth red ones and priests wear black ones.

The Council of Braga in Portugal (572) was one of the first such synods to mandate that clergy wear a tunic reaching to the feet. Responding to reports of laxity in Britain, Pope John VIII (c. 875) admonished the Archbishops of Canterbury d York to insure their clergy wore proper attire, particularly long tunics.

In the middle Ages, the dress of clergy began to be regulated by canon law with other specific regulations passed by local synods. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed that clerics must wear garments closed in front and free from extravagance.

At the turn of the 15th and the 16th centuries there was a custom of wearing robes called 'rvrend' (the word derives from Romance languages). Around this time, the cassock became the distinct garb of the clergy alone. It was given the French name "soutane" (derived from Medieval Latin/Early Italian "sottana," which means beneath, referring to the fur linings). The English speaking people adopted the word cassock, derived from early French "casaque."

The color black indicates poverty. Moreover, black is a color of mourning arid death for the priest, the symbolism is dying to oneself to rise and serve the Lord as well as giving witness of the Kingdom yet to come. Black is associated with sorrow but in the case of priestly robe this colour has another symbolic meaning. A black cassock is to remind a priest that he 'dies to the world' every day and immerses in eternity. Blackness also symbolizes giving up bright colours and thus giving up what the world brings, its glittering, honours and entertainment.

Further, the colour black is the symbol authority. A judge sitting on the judgment chamber wears black. An advocate who pleads in the court wears black robe. In the same manner, wearing the black robs during the services is a mark of the spiritual authority of Priests.

In our very secular world, the wearing of clerical garb continues to be a visible sign of belief and of the consecration of one's life to the service of the Lord and His Church.

41. Why do our Priests wear caps (Thoppi)?

The Orthodox Priests wear caps which sometimes is a distinguishing mark for the Priests. In facts, there is no clear spiritual meaning or theology for caps. During the Holy Qurbana, when the Priests put on various parts of the vestments, there are prayers associated with it. There are special prayers when the Priest puts on the ceremonial sandals. No prayer is said when the cap is put on.

Interestingly, there is no prayer for putting on the caps by Priests. Further, during the Holy Ordination service of the Priests, there is no specific prayer or spiritual direction when the cap is given to the Priests. All these suggest that the cap is not a part of the Holy Vestments of Orthodox Priests. In pre-Diamber era (before 1599) we do not find any evidence of priests wearing caps. The minutes of the synod of Diamber suggest that instead of caps, the Priests had “Kudummi” (locks of hair) like the Brahmin Priest. In the post-Diamber era also there is no clear instruction regarding the Thoppi. The Priests in Malankkara were instructed to wear the Thoppi only after the process of Syrianization began here. As the cap is part of the apparel of a Syrian Priest, the Syrians introduced it in our Church too. In many of the Orthodox Churches Priests have no caps. There is more tradition than theology in the matter of wearing Thoppi. As it was the part of the appeared Syrian of a Priest, we also adopted it.

42. Why do we worship Cross? Is it not idol worship?

We never worship the cross. Instead we venerate it. Veneration is distinct from idol worship because we are not worshiping the object as such. When we venerate cross, we actually venerate the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross by which we are redeemed. As the saviour of world, Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross. Christ used the cross as a weapon for our salvation. Those who love Christ, love the cross.

The bible holds the cross in high esteem.

1. Jesus Christ himself speaks very high of the cross. The sign and concept of the cross was so dear to Him. : “He who does not take the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” ( Matt. 10:38)

“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Lk. 9:23)

2. St. Paul speaks about cross with respect.

“Our glory is on the cross of the Lord (Gal. 6:14)

      The cross of Christ is God’s power for us. (1 Cor. 1:17)

      The end of the enemies of the cross is decay. (Phil 3:18)

3. We read the indirect reference of cross in the Old Testament. Ephraem and Manasse were blessed by hands put as cross (Gen 48:13,14)

                  The cross is used as a banner of Peace, Victory and Reconciliation. The word ‘sleebo’ (syriac for cross) means “the crucified one”. So when we venerate the sleebo, we venerate the one who died on the cross.

SOCIAL ISSUES AND THE CHURCH

1. What is the orthodox stance on ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy, and how do you back it up?

The Orthodox Church precludes the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. It is a matter of Holy Tradition, as well as a vision of ministry as something not limited to the ordained priesthood. In my limited experience of this subject I have come across theologians who posit that, while there may be no strictly theological objection to the ordination of women, Holy Tradition has never supported it, and that theological pursuits cannot be considered in isolation from the ongoing life of God's People known as Tradition. [It is important here to understand that Holy Tradition must not be confused with traditions (small "t", and plural) or customs.]

I would like to share a story with you to help illustrate: Shortly after the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, the militantly atheistic communist regime passed laws separating Church and state and separating the schools from the Church. Other laws forbade the ordained clergy from evangelizing, teaching religion to anyone, especially to children, etc. Clergy were limited to carrying out religious rites within the confines of church walls -- which had been confiscated by the state. The goal of this anti-religious stance was to wipe out all religious expression and faith, since religion was seen as "the opium of the people" and an obstacle in the creation of pure socialism. Such would be the situation until the late 20th century. There is a story which relates how a Patriarch of Moscow, shortly after the Revolution, was asked by a Soviet leader, "What will the Church do after the last grandmother dies?" The Patriarch replied, "There will be another generation of grandmothers to take their place." Very prophetic words, especially when one considers that most of today's grandmothers within the former Soviet Union were mere children or not even born when these words were first spoken.

The point of the story: In Orthodoxy the ordained priesthood is, of course, essential. Yet other ministries, including that of the grandmothers who were capable of continuing the priestly ministry of handing on the faith to the younger generations when the ordained clergy had no possibly to do so, are equally essential. Saint Paul speaks of a variety of functions which are critical to making the ministry of the Church whole, complete, and lacking in nothing. While each of these functions may be different, each is absolutely necessary. Hence, the ordained priesthood is essential, yet there are a variety of other ministries which are extensions of the priestly ministry of Our Lord -- and these other ministries, in fact, must be carried out in order to ensure the fullness of the faith and Church life.

Orthodoxy does not see the priesthood has a "right" or a "privilege." It does not see the clergy as a caste apart from the People of God. It does not understand ordination to the priesthood as a matter of justice, equality, political correctness, or human rights. No one, not even males, has the "right" to ordination; even our seminary catalogues state that the awarding of a divinity degree in no way guarantees ordination, as this is within the competency of the hierarchy alone. And no one, not even males, "chooses" ordination; we believe that it is God Who does the choosing, even if His will in this instance seems completely contrary with the understanding of this world or this culture or this era. [God's ways are not mankind's ways.] The clergy do not stand above the People of God; they stand in their midst, just as Christ stands in the midst of His People. Those who carry out essential ministries without being ordained also stand in the midst of God's People, for the ministries they pursue in the name of Our Lord also share in His work. The image of the Church is one in which the entire "People of God" work and worship together "with one mind" in harmony, up building one another and striving to achieve unity, rather than planting division or focusing undue attention on differences or alleged inequalities.

It is interesting to note that the controversy over the ordination of women is a rather recent one with roots outside the Orthodox Church. It is also interesting to note that, while the controversy rages in other confessions and has been a source of division, enmity, and schism elsewhere, it has garnered far less interest among Orthodox Christians. While the matter surely warrants thorough study, discussion, and dialogue, especially within cultures such as our own, and while there are certain related questions which indeed beg serious discussion -- such as the role of deaconesses in the early Church -- care needs to be taken not to create an artificial issue. The teaching of the Church clearly encourages all persons, women as well as men, young as well as old, to undertake essential critical ministries in the life of the Church -- the grandmothers of the Soviet era had a far greater impact on the life of the Church than the clergy of their day; had those grandmothers been ordained clergy, they would not have been able to have the same powerful effect on generations which otherwise might have been lost. Perhaps the very success of the hordes of faithful grandmothers in their priestly ministry as grass-roots evangelizers is due not only to their faith, but to their understanding of ministry as a gift and a blessing and a calling and a vocation rather than a question of justice and equality, as is heard so often in heterodox circles.

If we truly believe that all that happens within the Body of Christ is directed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, we might well question why calls for the ordination of women only surfaced some 1,950 years after Christ. In His own time we see the exemplary ministry of the myrrh-bearing women who served Our Lord while the male disciples hid in fear and denied knowledge of Him.

While it is only my opinion that the question should never be silenced, I would also propose that its discussion must be conducted within the parameters of the Church's ongoing Tradition and not in post-modern secular or humanist categories which bear little relationship to the Gospel. While Orthodoxy has not accepted the ordination of women, it does laud a woman, the matter of God as the one who is "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim" and holds her up as a model for all of God's People, male and female alike. In this light, salvation, not ordination, is the goal of Christian life.

2. What is the problem with inter-caste or interfaith marriage?

In the Orthodox Church, marriage is not only a contract between the bride and bride groom. It is a sacrament (mystery) through which ‘two’ different individuals become ‘one’. A sacrament in the Church is meant for the church members only. Christian calling is a unique one. 1 Pet. 2:9, says “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous Light.”

Since we are a chosen race and special people, it is quite in compatible with a Christian boy to seek a non-Christian alliance or vice-versa. Marriage in the Church is possible only between two Christian believers. II Cor. 6:14 “Do not be equally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?”  Marriage between a ‘believer’ and non-believer is not possible. Secondly, family in the Christian understanding is a miniature of heaven on earth. The unity in family is to a large measure, depended upon the faith and practice of the parties. ‘A family that prays together stays together.’ Praying together is a near impossibility in a mixed marriage case. In an age when the even marriage between boys and girls of identical background tend to fail and divorce has become very rampant, how difficult it would be to get along for a couple of two different faiths and religious practices? (In case such a marriage is to be solemnized   in the Church, the other partner who is not a Christian believer, has to be baptized first and made a member of the Church.)

Why should there be matrimony in Church? Is it not enough that men and women choose their respective partners in life and live together?

Life together of a man and a woman is, as a matter of fact, a family. It is in families that children are born. The responsibility for bringing up children as worthy persons, respectable citizens, and above all as devoted members of the family of God, is vested in man and woman by God. Matrimony is the means where by the Church sanctions people to work out this divine ordering in practice.

As I stated earlier, marriage in Christian understanding is not contract between two individuals only. As such a marriage cannot be solemnized except in a Church. In this unique sacrament, two people become ‘one’ in a mysterious way. Further, in the Orthodox rite of marriage, the wedding ring is blessed and given to the bride and groom by the Church. No exchange of rings is seen in our marriage. For us, the marriage contract is not between two human parties. Instead, it is a contract that the bride and bridegroom together make with God. The Church enthrones them as King and Queen to live happily in a family. This is expressed in the Service of Crowning. Therefore, the Church is an indispensable factor in a Christian marriage.

3. Is it sin to date? How far I should go on a date? How Far is Too Far?

From an Orthodox perspective, dating is an unnecessary practice imported from the West. In a mad craze to imitate the West, which is the graveyard of all values, our young generation also started speaking about dating. To me, as an Orthodox Priest, Dating is a very dangerous trend which jeopardizes the institution of marriage and weakens the concept of family. As the people engaged in dating are immature young boys and girls, usually it culminates in sexual activity. Unbridled mingling of a boy and girl at an explosive age would invite unnecessary consequences.

Many students ask the question, "How far should I go on a date?" My first response is that the very concept of dating is incompatible with the Indian culture and Christian traditions. If at all you date, here are some principles that will help you decide what appropriate behavior is on a date.

1. Does the situation I put myself in invite sexual immorality or help me avoid it?
   Says to "flee from sexual immorality." We cannot do this if we are tempting ourselves through carelessness.
2. What kind of reputation does my potential date have? When you accept a date you are essentially saying, "My values are the same as your values." That in itself can put you in a position you may regret later. Remember “bad company corrupts good character."
3. Will there be any pressure to use alcohol or drugs? Don't give up your values for a date.
4. Am I attracting the wrong type of person?

Make sure that the message you send with your actions doesn't attract people who will lead you to compromise your values.

5. Am I aware that sin is first committed in the heart?

Says, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed with her in his heart."

6. Are you going to the right kind of place for a date? Many good intentions have been forgotten because the temptation and opportunity were too great.
7. Am I doing anything to encourage sexual desire?

Don't engage in any impure contact that is sexually motivated, such as petting.

4. How far can we go?

The best Christian male-female relationships are those that grow out of spiritual beginnings. A Christian boyfriend-girlfriend relationship should start as a spiritual relationship.

By this I mean the boy and girl should have a relationship that is one first centred on friendship around prayer, worship and an awakening to the light and power of God's word.

As the friendship develops into a prayer partnership and encouragement of each other in excitement about the Gospel then the relationship begins to take on a social dimension also. The boy and girl will start doing things together in a social context as well as spiritual.

The emphasis in a Christian boy-girl relationship is meant to be on, first, its spiritual dimension and, second, its social dimension. Before marriage an emphasis on a sexual dimension to the relationship can hinder the relationship's healthy and strong development. This is because the proper order for things is first the spirit; second the soul and only lastly the body.

This is a principle of life that leads to great and marvelous things developing in a person's life. Jesus gives us this principle as part of what we know as the Sermon on the Mount. There He declares, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." Mat.6:33.

The development of the sexual relationship is best left until after marriage. Marriage gives warmth, security and liberty for the sexual relationship to develop richly and emotionally soundly.

So my advice is - don't look to push the boundaries of sexual activity as far you feel you can righteously get away with it but rather look to limit the boundaries of sexual activity as far as you possibly can in order to give emphasis in the relationship to the spiritual first and then the social.

5. What’s wrong with sex before marriage?

I think sex before marriage is wrong because the Bible tells us that it is. Sex comes with a lot of complications that even an adult would find hard to handle, not to mention sexually transmitted diseases.

Scientific studies indicate that relationships that involve pre-marital sex fail. A relationship that starts with sex usually last only 2-3 years. A marriage usually runs into trouble in 3-5 years. If a couple have sex prior to marriage, it may start to fade just when the marriage troubles start, the strong sexual attraction may not be there when the couple needs it most.

Sex before marriage changes your future in so many ways!! There are negative risks both spiritually and physically.

Will their love for each other last a lifetime? I suggest that their sexual relations are self serving. You/they are cheating themselves of the intimacy that God intended.

If you have sex before marriage you will never know whether the relationship is based on a true "kinship" with that person or just sex.

Love waits. Your relationship should be able to grow and thrive without sex. God wants us to develop a relationship that does not depend on sex for oneness.

Though you cannot imagine it now, sometime in your future you will really regret having sex before you're married, if you should go ahead and do it. You are going to do what you want to do but just know, without a doubt, it is true that sex before marriage will hurt you inside.

If you have sex before marriage you lose your virginity and when you get married you are not giving your whole self to your spouse.

Sex outside of marriage is like playing with gun. You never know when the gun will fire or the person has an STD.

Sex before marriage will ultimately damage your sexual relationship with the one you do eventually marry. It is much wiser to wait and experience that person and have that person experience you for the first time without expectation of things that were before.

If you don't marry that person who you've had sex with, then the person who you do marry won't get the entire you.

Sex is like a beautiful gift. It's only one special gift that should not be wasted on just a love fling.

Sex is a precious gift from God. This gift can only be given away for the first time once. Wouldn't this be a great gift for that one person who will be with you for the rest of your life?

The Bible says that we are not supposed to commit adultery and having sex before marriage is considered adultery, so it is called sinning.

If you love them you'll be willing to wait until marriage to have sex. It will make it all the more special.

If you truly love someone you will respect them enough to wait until marriage to have sex.

It's not worth the risk of pregnancy or STD. It's not fair to your future spouse.

6. Where in the Bible does it spell out that premarital sex is sin?

Virginity was highly valued by the Jews, so much so that there was a ritual that was required on each wedding night to insure the bride's purity: a blood-stained cloth or garment as proof. You can read about this in Deuteronomy 22:15,17,20.

This valuing of virginity continues into the New Testament, where the word "virgin" appears many times in passages about sexual morals (see 1 Corinthians 7:28,34,36-38; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

7. Is it wrong for a girl to wear pants/jeans?

To give a clear cut answer to this question is rather difficult. I don't believe there is anything in the Bible against wearing pants. Sometimes the Pentecostal churches cite Deut. 22:5 as a command against wearing pants

The command in Deuteronomy contains teachings against women wearing male clothing, but in our society pants is certainly not exclusively male clothing. At one time they were, but no longer.

I would recommend you to read I Tim. 2:9-11 also in this context. There are two things to say. First, we should ask what it meant for women to wear braided hair, gold, and pearls in that society. If you do a little historical research on Roman apparel you will find that these things all represented costly or time consuming extravagance. Pearls were fabulously priced and thus way beyond the purchasing power of the average church member. A display of gold ornaments meant "I'm rich. Look at me and envy." Braids were fastened by jeweled tortoise-shell combs, pins of ivory or silver. The pin heads often were jewels or consisted of carved miniature images (an animal, a human hand, an idol, the female figure). This braiding of hair would take several hours to accomplish.  So in each case, these items represented extravagance.

An additional thing to say about this passage is that it is probably an example of using an absolute statement when a relative statement is actually meant. Now don't let your eye's glaze over at this, but this is a typical language idiom and an important thing to keep in mind when reading the Bible. The Hebrews tend to give an absolute statement when we would give a relative one. [Other Biblical examples: Genesis 45:8; Exodus 16:9; Psalm 51:4; Psalm 51:16; Jeremiah 7:22-23; 1 Corinthians 1:17; Philippians 2:4; 1 John 3:18.] What this means is that the best translation of 1 Timothy 2:9 is probably "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not merely with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds." Absolute statements like this are used when the speaker wishes to emphasize the latter part of the statement: "Women should dress with good deeds." Therefore the whole statement is to emphasize and uphold the principle “women should dress with good deeds”.

So how should a woman dress? God says that women should learn how to dress modestly and decently. Women should not try to show off, wearing flashy apparel so as to make others jealous of them or to attract men by sexual stimulation. Revealing the curves and curls of human body objectionable as it leads to sexual stimulation. Vanity is a sin and the pursuit of the cult of beauty is a waste of the time, money, and energy God has given to you.

But women do not have to balk at fashion either (unless a particular fashion happens to be immoral or indecent). Christian ladies must not look decidedly old-fashioned, awkward, or strange. This is just another way to draw attention to you: "Look at how holy and different I am." A proud heart is sometimes concealed behind a mask of pretended modesty. That too is a sin.

"Be not the first by whom the new is tried, nor yet the last to lay the old aside."

Therefore my personnel advice is this: There should be a meeting point of the morality and discipline of the society and the changing trends in dress. Girls should avoid tight jeans and tops especially in Churches as it may distract the attention of the congregation.

8. Is Divorce permitted in the Church? What is our stand on divorce?

"Divorce" is a legal word meaning full and final separation so that each one is free to remarry or live alone at will. Ray E Baber defines divorce as, "Divorce is merely a process of un-marrying people who have been married. It is an official recognition that their marriage is a failure and therefore has more cause for terminating than for continuing. Divorce indicates the failure of a given marriage," (Marriage and Family, page 443). He notes; from 1867 to 1950 while the population increased fourfold, divorces increased thirty-nine-fold that is ten times faster than the population growth. He cites nine major causes, (1) "adultery, (2) desertion, (3) cruelty, (4) conviction for crime, (5) alcoholism, (6) impotence, (7) nonsupport, (8) insanity, and (9) living apart, for divorce. Drug habit, ante-nuptial un-chastity by wife, joining cults that disbelieves in cohabitation of spouses, vagrancy of husband, crime against nature, violent temper, leprosy, venereal disease, public defamation of spouse, gross misbehavior and wickedness are some of the thirty-nine minor reasons for which divorces were granted in various states as of 1950. Despite the crumbling relations, chaotic social situation and frightfully escalating divorce rate people still attach great importance to the institution of marriage at least in principle, according to a columnist. This being true, peoples' understanding of marriage and family life is distorted and a source of great distress. I do not presuppose by a flight of fancy that just because most couples live together without divorce they all are leading virtuous family life. There are couples disdainfully pulling together for various constraints. Looking at divorce by any standard there can be no greater tragedy in the life of individuals and society. Relationships are shattered, children stranded, finance crumbled, violence induced and hopes and aspirations devastated. The anxiety, fear, hate and feeling of insecurity which it creates carry for the rest of the life and pass it on a bad legacy to next generation. No one can ever replenish the void created. It is a dereliction from the basic duties as an individual and an affront to moral standards and God. Divorce itself is no sin but the result of sin.

Children are the most hapless victims. Children need the love and care of mother and father both, grandparents and close relatives to develop positive attitude about life, toward family and society. Children living with parents who constantly argue and fight, single parent, foster parent, etc are more susceptible to all sorts of wild feelings than those who live in lovable family atmosphere. Children, who are isolated from the love of parents live in seclusion, and suffer low esteem. Wantonness induces abuses, addiction to drug, alcohol and sex which in turn incites violence, psychological disorders and ultimately become threat to themselves and society. Words fail to express the havoc that divorce brings into the lives of spouses and children but the staggering question is; who cares? I am yet to come across one single opinion supporting divorce, addiction and violence and yet there is no end in sight; rather addiction, violence and divorce increase unabated. We can point fingers and write volumes on the many reasons and aspects that lead to divorce and all the chaos that it creates. All of them could be condensed in one sentence and that is; humanity driven by outlandish ego first divorced God from life; thus lost the standard point of reference as to what is right and wrong or good and evil. In this case Satan is the victor.

My humble attempt is to search the biblical perspective on divorce. Divorce discussed in Mathew 19:3-9 is the basis of my discussion. Marriage and divorce are two separate subjects meriting detailed discussions because both are closely intertwined and touching on both subjects is inevitable to discuss either one. Chief point of discourse here is divorce; not marriage.

However it is essential to consider Mark's version on the same subject, Mk 10:1-12, without which discussion on divorce will be inconclusive. A remarkable difference in the two passages is the condition that Mathew says, ?except for sexual immorality,?v9, to divorce. Scholars also say that the conditional clause in Mathew 19:9, "except for sexual immorality," is not found in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel. Similar to the portion in Mark 16:9-20 this was added later by someone more liberal. Liberal thinkers like Baber and Jay Adams think that Jesus justified divorce. This interpretation serves a guide to 'tidal increase in divorce.' This condition induces immorality; to commit adultery and divorce; thus rendered more damage than good to the all-time burning issue of divorce. Mark does not mention it at all as a condition to divorce. We need to analytically view both passages. Mark's presentation is more a natural dialogue than that of Mathew. Most scholars, especially ancient Churches, Orthodox and Roman Catholic, agree that Mark is the first evangelist who wrote a Gospel of our Lord. Mark as the faithful disciple of St Peter wrote his Gospel as per St Peter’s advice and it is undoubtedly the Gospel of Peter himself. Both Mathew and Luke considered the Gospel of Mark as their base. Gospel of Mark is thus more accurate rendering of events. Luke deserves distinction too; he does not mention this lengthy discussion at all. He says, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery," Luke 16:18. This is a précis statement banning all kinds of divorce. Surely, Jesus did not conceive a conditional divorce in opposition to the original intent of creator because Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me," John 4:34.

Roman Catholics consider marriage a sacrament. There is no uniform approach among Protestants, but most consider it a civil union. Orthodox considers marriage not only a sacrament but also a mystery (Roso) beyond human understanding. God in His unfathomable love for humanity makes the impossible, possible that is, unites and makes one male and one female repeating after what He did to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Mathew says that Pharisees brought up the question of divorce to test Jesus. It was a clearly devised snare against Jesus. Divorce was a nagging question for all people of all the time and continues without solution until today. But it was never before as rampant and uncontrollable as of today. Rabbis could not find a common solution for the ravaging problem. Three rabbinical schools were prominent in the days of Jesus totally opposed to one another. (1) Shammai taught that it was legal to divorce wife for reason of infidelity. (2) Hillel taught any reason, as silly as a spoiled dish, would be sufficient reason to divorce. (3) Rabbi Akiba taught an extremely liberal view, 'if you see a prettier woman divorce the first wife.' They claimed basis of their teaching in Mosaic Law regarding divorce, Deut 24:1-4. In the light of conflicting rabbinical positions the question to Jesus in itself was not malicious. But the intent was malicious merely because they wanted to drag him in the rabbinical brawl. The group of questioners would have comprised of followers from all disciplines. Depending upon the reply they could easily brand him in one or the other side of Rabbis; conservative, liberal or ultraliberal which would prove detrimental to his authority. Such a situation would cause dissention among his own following. They failed to trap him because Jesus very cautiously handled the situation. He went all the way back to Genesis to clarify the question. He called their attention to the original intent of creation asserting the fact that humanity in His days drifted too far off the original purpose of creation.

In the beginning God created them male and female (in Syriac: Dkar v nekbo bro enoon), Jesus said. Hebrew word for male is tsakar, which means prick or pierce. This imports masculine sense to convey that which is powerful, sturdy, upright, etc. The word for female is neqbah, means perforation, tunnel, etc which imports feminine sense; soft, delicate, etc. Scholars suggest evidence of sexual union and that 'become one (sarx) flesh' directly points to sexual union. St Paul agrees to this explanation, "He who is joined to a harlot is one body with her," 1Cor 6:16. God is the one who designed sex and procreation through sexual union. This happened before the fall and therefore not incidental to fall. What the fall brought upon the humanity is loss of control, desire and misuse of sex through such perverted desire. Sex is the gift of God; not an evil in itself. Proper use of sex is exercising Will of God and a function that fulfills God's purpose. Biological scientists now think reproduction is possible without sex and man can conceive child!

Form all these it can be concluded that divorce is not permitted in the Christian Church.

"To err is human and to forgive is divine" "Please forgive...!!!

                                                       May Almighty God Bless You all

Fr. Johnson Punchakonam   

Custom Search