Orthodox leave the NCC

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

July 28, 2005
Breaking News: Orthodox Leave NCC

Dearborn, Michigan. July 28, 2005.This afternoon the Archdiocesan Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America voted overwhelmingly to leave the National Council of Churches USA. The Archdiocese is holding its annual convention this week in Dearborn, Michigan.

The action was not a temporary “suspension” of membership, but a formal withdrawal from the NCC. The clergy unanimously approved the withdrawal, followed by a unanimous vote of the lay delegates supporting the move. An announcement of the final vote was met with thunderous applause by the Convention.

Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Metropolitan PHILIP, head of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, was reportedly outspoken in calling for the church to withdraw from the NCC, stating that the relationship had proven fruitless.

The National Council of Churches USA has listed on its website "36 member communions and denominations." It now has 35.

Note: An interview about this vote and its consequences with the Very Rev. Olof Scott, the newly-elected chairman of the Department of Interfaith Relationships, is scheduled to air on Ancient Faith Radio this coming Sunday, July 31, 2005, at 5 PM EDT.

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

This is a good thing. The NCC is a political action group no longer a discussion amongst denominations.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Well said Anesti Jordanoglou! I agree.

[Kosmas Damianides]

They have never respected our Orthodox faith and had always pushed their own political agendas.

[Edward Henderson]

I have also read that the OCA is also considering leaving the NCC and the WCC. It casts a very interesting light on American Orthodoxy. I used to think that if the Antiochian Archdiocese got autonomy, they would get more liberal, but the opposite has proven to be the case. Perhaps this is a clear sign that America is ready for a single autocephalous Orthodox Church and an end to ecclesiastical colonialism.

[Petros L.]

Good, we need to stay away from any tyoe of euchamism.(sp)

[Fr. George Morelli]

To All: Glory to Jesus Christ! . I cannot spend to much time tonight as I have to prepare for Liturgy tomorrow .. I just got back from the Antiochian Conference. Not only did the Antiochian Archdiocese withdraw from the NCC … but when it when it was announced at the Clergy Conference on Tuesday and at the General Assembly there was a standing ovation and not one dissenting voice.
Also of great if not greater importance Metropolitan Philip proposed a Resolution condemning Christian “extremism” of right and left: specifically condemning “unjust preemptive war, abortion, gay marriage and Women advancing to Holy Orders” … the Resolution is a page and a half. I do not have a scanner … I will attempt to type it and post it late tomorrow or Monday. In the case of this Resolution, there was one friendly amendment to make the resolution “stronger”. It was passed unanimously and once again with not a single dissenting vote. After the vote there was a loud standing ovation. At the start of the General Assembly Metropolitan Philip prayed to the Holy Spirit to guide the Bishops, Priests and all the Delegates in all deliberations and voting. These prayers were referenced over and over again during the Assembly for us all to be to be guided by the Holy Spirit when voting. I cannot begin to relate to all my joy and thanksgiving to Our Lord that my Archdiocese took this action to deal with these issues. Last year I wrote a letter to our bishops and the editor of The Word (Antiochian Archdiocese Monthly Magazine) that woman’s ordination is a heresy of such importance equal to the Christological controversies of the first few centuries of the Church …. and pleading for an official Archdiocesan statement on this issue …. Lord, thank you for your Spirit …. In Christ, FrGeorge

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr George,
Thanks be to God for this- thanks be to God.
Your brother in Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

I agree that this is great news. I also agree with Edward that the Antiochian church here in America has become more conservative. However, I disagree with his conclusion that this is related to the autonomy issue.

The Antiochian Archdiocese has had a great number of converts over the past 15 years. I have heard that our seminarians are more than 50% converts. Studies have shown that converts in America tend to be more conservative (sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better) regarding the faith than the "cradle" Orthodox. In addition, the current generation of "cradle" or "ethnic" Orthodox tend to be more conservative regarding their faith than their parents, in part again because of the influence of the converts.

My own personal opinion is that Bishop Basil (Essey) has also had an influence in this regard.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Studies have shown that converts in America tend to be more conservative (sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better) regarding the faith than the "cradle" Orthodox. In addition, the current generation of "cradle" or "ethnic" Orthodox tend to be more conservative regarding their faith than their parents, in part again because of the influence of the converts.

This is a very interesting point. When I became Orthodox in the late 1970s converts were not usually any more conservative or traditional. This is a change I began to see in the mid or late 1980s. Except for speaking of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church I do not know myself why this change occured.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

This is a very interesting point. When I became Orthodox in the late 1970s converts were not usually any more conservative or traditional. This is a change I began to see in the mid or late 1980s. Except for speaking of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church I do not know myself why this change occurred.

As St John of the Climax(ladder) says: "The light of the monks are the angels, and the light of the laity are the monks".

In the 60s-70s the light was "shimmering" because people had their eyes semi-closed; nevertheless they were seeing some light.

As we arrived at the eighties the eyes of the souls “closed” because of the secularization of the Church.

But at the same time the "small flock" was shining even more.

The converts that are introduced to the light of the “small flock” are coming from absolute darkness and despair. They adore the revealed light and they are ready to deny every false "light" in order to preserve the vision of Light.

The man that has gone through hell knows the true meaning of blessed mourning. In many cases “to be more conservative” means to mourn for the lack of Light, after having experienced the blessing of its rays.

In another point of view, of the same object, “to be more conservative converts” means that the rest of the society has forgotten the “ascetic” life of our ancestors. For our ancestors many “conservative” practices of converts of today were “normal” behaviour for them.

The “conservative” asceticism is experienced by the converts as an experience beyond conservatism and modernism, as the truth of real life.

“Conservatism” is applied as a label to people that is not worried for the future or the present and they are satisfied by the traditional way of life, as they repulse any “new” suggestions.

The converts of our time are wedded to the advice from the Lord:

(Luke 12:29-32)
“And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep your minds immobile between equally valued choices. For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows what you need from these things. Apart from those, seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. Do not be afraid to join the little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you (the members of the little flock) the kingdom”.

May God bless us, all.

Leandros.

[Justin]

condemning Christian “extremism” of right and left: specifically condemning “unjust preemptive war

Am I an extremist, and needing to confess as a sin, the fact that I am not against the war in Iraq, and also disagree with all the peaceful statements that I have seen hierarchs of various jurisdictions issue? I am not asking facetiously, but am genuinely curious, as someone who may soon be attending an Antiochian parish permanently. Is my support for the war in Iraq equated in it's seriousness and sinfulness with abortion? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif

[Vasilis Kirikos]

In 1916 the UK invaded Iraq; and according to a book written by one of Britain’s military officers, Iraq was invaded "to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq...". Does that reason sound familiar? Do you seriously beieve that was the reason for invading Iraq at that time?

I don't guess that you are any more a sinner for being for the war in Iraq than am I for my firm belief that it is a war for the money people and that the leader of this war, who is a proven failure in business, a coward, a drunkard who is nothing more than a puppet with as much brains as a puppet. Who? George W. Bush. That is who. A rich man's son who never worked a day in his useless life...A man who cowered his way out of going to Viet Nam and who is now attempting to prove his manhood by sending others to fight and die...His guts and the blood of others. But he would NEVER jeopardize his own butt by fighting for this nation.


This war, like all other wars is all about greed. Yes! ALL OTHER WARS WERE AND ARE ABOUT GREED. Even the civil war in the USA. The excuse much later given to the people was to end slavery. But in reality it had NOTHING to do with slavery...It was all about money; 10 cents versus 13 cents for a bail of cotton. The industrial north could only afford to pay the southern plantation owner 10 cents for a bail of cotton. The British had more advanced means to make cloth from cotton and could afford to pay 13 cents. The industrial north pressured and got the Federal congress to impose an import export tax. The south claimed states rights; became very angry and fired on Fort Sumter. During the war Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation ONLY FREEING THE SLAVES LOCATED IN THOSE STATES THAT HAD SUCCEEDED FROM THE UNION...ALL OTHER SLAVES REMAINED SLAVES! Moreover, by the time the war ended it was not practical economically to have slaves; and it would have shortly ended in the south as well had there been no war becasue slavery was simply becoming too expensive. So after the civil war the black Americans were "set free".. Set free? Are you kidding? They were free to stay out of main stream America...free to wash dishes, shine shoes, clean offices, clean homes and collect trash and live in absolute squalor; but not much else until about 100 years AFTER the civil war ended.

If you want to know what and who caused this or that war all you have to do is follow the money trail....And don’t you even get me started on Viet Nam…a needless war started by the British who after being helped by the Vietnamese during WW II, repaid them by rearming the Japanese (who had earlier surrendered) giving time for the French to reclaim their old colonial rule and prevent the Vietnamese from reclaiming their own nation. The promised referendum to vote reunification of Viet Nam was denied them. So don’t bother to argue that the Communist north was going to impose their rule on the South; which South Viet Nam was dominated by one of the most vial and crooked regimes in history.
Vasilis (Viet Nam era veteran)

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Am I an extremist...?

Dear forum member Justin Kissel,

You are the only one who knows who you are.

The question is whether WE ARE the person that we believe ourselves to be, or if WE BELIEVE ourselves to be the person that we are?

It is a question that can receive an answer only within the Church.

And there are many surprises awaiting us in the Life of Church!

(Matthew 11:16-19)

“To what can I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying:

‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
We mourned to you, and you did not lament.’

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”

(Message edited by lpap on 01 August, 2005)

[Owen Jones]

"This is a very interesting point. When I became Orthodox in the late 1970s converts were not usually any more conservative or traditional. This is a change I began to see in the mid or late 1980s. Except for speaking of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church I do not know myself why this change occured."
In Christ- Fr Raphael

The changes occurred as the Episcopal Church in particular and the "mainline" protestant denominations embraced a radical secular agenda of salvation, forcing people to look elsewhere, or, mostly, just go home and stay there. There numbers of people seeking Orthodoxy from these denomnations is trivial compared to those who have embraced "Evangelicalism" or "Pentacostalism" or just stayed home.

[Owen Jones]

There is in Christianity a certain moral equivalence theory of the world. "All men are liars" is an example. At the same time, we should avoid blanket condemnations. We are commanded to respect secular rulers who are charged with awesome responsibilities. To say that they are all motivated by greed and money reflects a certain gnostic air of superiority. War will always be with us, but the surprising thing is how little money and greed typically has to do with it. These historic clashes are more typically the result of differences in symbolic meaning. A good reference on this would be Eric Voegelin's "New Science of Politics." Modern wars are typically the result of gnostic revolutions and the reaction to them.

BTW, any rational discussion of Iraq ought to include 9/11. Most critiques of the Iraq campaign studiously avoid mention of 9/11. There are gross miscalculations in any war, as there have been in the Iraq campaign (part of a larger war/struggle between two clashing symbols of meaning). As those miscalculations come to the surface, frequently the reasons or justifications for the war change. Iraq is no different. It is a rather facile explanation of these miscalculations to reduce all of the motive to economic greed and lying.

While Christians should harbor a healthy dose of cynicism regarding worldly power, worldly power is part of reality from which there is no escape, and we are all a part of that reality. Christianity is not an escape from reality. It teaches transformation of reality, but on a personal, not a political level. At the political level of reality, we must deal with givens, and not try to impose a standard of purity that is unreal.

[Fr. George Morelli]

To all concerned: Glory to Jesus Christ! Here is the Resolution passed unanimously and without even one dissenting voice or vote by the Bishops, Priests, Trustees and Delegates at the Antiochian Conference General Assembly 29 July 2005:

RESOLUTION IN VIGOROUS OPPOSITION TO POSITIONS TAKEN BY EXTREME CHRISTIAN GROUPS

WHEREAS, several extreme positions that are both divisive and dangerous have emerged from so-called “Left-wing” and “Right-wing” Christian groups;

AND WHEREAS, the tenets of these extreme positions include, but are not limited to, support for same-sex marriage, support for abortion, support for ordination of women to Holy Orders, support for the concept of war which is “pre-emptive” or “justifiable”, and the labeling of other faiths and their leaders with hateful terminology;

AND WHEREAS, The Holy Orthodox Church believes and teaches the faith which was taught by Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and upheld by His Apostles, and “which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude:3);

AND WHEREAS, The Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America stands firm in her resolve to uphold this Holy Orthodox Faith in all of its purity;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this General Assembly of the 47th Convention of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America firmly rejects all extremist positions that are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Faith;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Archdiocese will not be affiliated with those groups that support and promulgate these [‘and any’ (added by friendly amendment)] extreme positions, and that this Archdiocese will continue to witness to the Truth as received from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, His Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers and all of the saints and martyrs who have lived and died to uphold the Orthodox Faith

Sponsored by His Eminence Metropolitan PHILIP

I thank God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the preservation of Orthodoxy. Secularism, political correctness and irrelevance (insignificance, disregard) are three great challenges facing the Church today. These are ‘spiritual cancers’ so to speak; so subtle and hard to see, but so deadly. May the healing light of Christ be made manifest in the world. …. In Christ …FrGeorge

[Justin]

Well this is a most unfortunate resolution. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif

[Owen Jones]

While the Antiochian Archdiocese is now independent in a formal sense, I suspect there is some Syrian influence in the somewhat eliptical condemnation of U.S. Iraq conflict. It is a mildly worded resolution that is understandable, given the situation. One can hardly expect the Syrians to applaud America's invasion of Iraq. I suspect that there were earlier drafts of this resolution that were far more critical of the U.S. I think most Antiochian Arabs are, in any case, Lebanese and "Palestinians" for whom there is no great love lost for Syria. Israel is another matter, always lurking in the background. Perhaps there have been other resolutions from the Antiochian Archdiocese condemning all terrorist attacks. I don't know.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Perhaps Fr. George can expound on any discussion at the Convention, but I find it hard to believe that this document passed unanimously if indeed this is a veiled condemnation of the Iraq situation. The reason I say this is because I know several Antiochian priests and lay people in attendance that never would have voted for such a resolution.

I think what this document says is essentially that the Orthodox generally do not see war as justifiable and certainly not pre-emptive. War is always, to some degree, a sinful resolution of conflict. On the other hand, it is arguable, at least in some minds, whether or not Iraq was really pre-emptive. So this condemnation of the pre-emptive and/or justifiable war does not necessarily apply specifically to Iraq.

Again, I understand why someone might think this condemns the invasion in Iraq--and it certainly seems to me to do so--but I know several priests that have been supportive of the invasion, so I cannot imagine this is the case.

Aaron

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Rev.Fr.George Morelli,

Please, let me address a question to you:

First, let me say that, I personally agree one hundred percent with the resolution of the Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, as it is presented in your post No 35.

But, what makes this resolution to be an “Orthodox” resolution?

There is the life, that consists from political, secular, economical, athletic, social and many other expressions of common life and there is the life of Church, which is the perfection of life within the imperfect life, as an “imperfect perfection” of the perfect members of the body of Christ.

It is a well known practice for Orthodox Church NOT TO engage in social leadership, but to practise personal perfection on the grounds of personal imperfection. In this context, the Orthodox Church had contributed in the social life by providing specific “role-models” of perfection according to patterns of life of Saints.

From time to time, the Orthodox Church was confronted by social and spiritual movements that were having an effect of permanent imperfection in the personal life of members of the Church. Only then, the Orthodox Church was issuing a declaration of blockade against the specific persons or groups of persons that were introducing the “spiritual cancer” -as you called it and I also agree with this characterisation- in the body of Church.

This personalization is missing from the resolution. Are the condemned “extreme positions” without representation from specific church members, laity or clergy?

Are the “extreme groups” nameless?

How is it possible to differentiate one group from the other or one position from the other?

I think that this was the problem in the first place.

Let me explain my question with an example :

“During a horse race in Thessaloniki Greece, the mob killed a few military officers. In order to take revenge, the emperor organized new race events, and ordered the execution of 7,000 innocent people.

St Amvrosios, Bishop of Mediolanon (Milan, Italy) was informed this tragic event with deep sorrow and disappointment.

When the emperor visited Italy, he wanted to see Amvrosios the time he was functioning at the cathedral. Instead of a warm welcome, he saw Amvrosios at the entrance of the cathedral blocking his way and saying: "Stop sinner. You cannot comprehend the size of your crime? Did the power and the crown made your brain unable to understand your sin? How you dare entering to the holy house of the God, when your hands are still bloody from the blood of so many innocent citizens? Leave, and do not even try to add to your first sin, a second sin."

Emperor Theodosios reminds Amvrosios, David's sin, but Amvrosios with intelligence he replies: "Well, as you imitated David in the sin, you should imitate David in repentance".

Theodosios left with tears in his eyes and for eight months he was under strict religion observance, for Amvrosios to forgive him”.

The general condemnation of anonymous sinful position and anonymous sinful groups is a sign of secularization of Church, as long as it does not go with the tracking and the presentation of the persons and groups that promote and teach these sins. This presentation of groups and of persons has as a primary goal to guide them in repentance and to bring back again the lost “sheep” up on the shoulders of Christ. Only if the preacher of false refuses to return, then the Church let him/her go, while warning the rest Church members not to follow his/her steps to perdition.

Am I asking for too much from the Orthodox Church ministers? Why the Orthodox bishops of the past were brave enough to name the leaders, either political, or churchmen, that made such lethal errors?

You can read the Petition send to President Bush To Reconsider Iraq Invasion (http://www.ncccusa.org/news/02news83.html) in September 12, 2002 by 51 Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical Leaders. The letter was a rightful petition, just like the resolution from the Convention, and it was asking in the end: “As Christian religious leaders responsible for millions of U.S. citizens we expect our government to reflect the morals and values we hold dear – pursuing peace, not war; working with the community of nations, not overthrowing governments by force; respecting international law and treaties while holding in high regard all human life”.

Forgive me father, but the concern of an Orthodox Clergyman should have been to save the soul of the president of the USA, and not to ask for the “moral and values and peace against war”. (If the petition was addressed to the President as "an impersonal institution" and not to G.Bush as the specific person, then this means that Church has lost her orientation and has became a secular organization.

The physician who exhausts his ministry in talking with the patients about the right and wrong medicine and then leaves without practicing the medicine on the heavily ill-being is offering no service to his ministry.

I hope not to be misunderstood: I admire the Orthodox spirit of the convention members that came up with this kind of resolution, under such political and social pressures. I know that it takes a lot of courage and needs spirit of self-sacrifice for the adoption of this specific resolution. But, is it Church's ministry to know the right from wrong, or to heal imperfection into perfection?

I just, ask you, Father, whether is it an Orthodox resolution if it says nothing about the identity of the specific carriers of such “extreme” positions?

(I also think that Mr Warwick's post already canseled an important part of the resolution!)

[Fr. George Morelli]

Aaron and Leandros, Glory to Jesus Christ! As I have said in past posts I am a priest-psychologist, certainly not a theologian. I am saying this not as an excuse but as a statement of fact. First I want to point out again the Resolution was proposed by His Eminence Metropolitan PHILIP himself. In terms of the facts of the case I was present for every moment of the Assembly. Only one person, made a comment, and that was to make the Resolution stronger. I personally witnessed not only any opposition at all but: enthusiastic overwhelming support, a standing ovation etc. Personally my own focus was on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and woman priesthood. My own focus was NOT on the ‘preemptive unjust war’ statement [However In fact I do have very strong personal opinions on this latter issue: I can never judge any person only God can do that. I believe a preemptive illegal attack on a sovereign nation is morally wrong. I also believe the acts against prisoners of war as reported in the news media is morally wrong. I personally believe we had the moral high ground so to speak in WW II –we were attacked. However I also know some historians will argue we set up the attack at Pearl Harbor ourselves and I am presenting a very simplistic picture. I personally am a member of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship-if asked about politics I always say I cannot judge any person only God can, but I can as a Christian say abortion is wrong, gay marriage is wrong and pre-emptive unjust attacks against sovereign nations is wrong. I preach on abortion and gay marriage and about the impossibility of woman priests; I do not and never have preached on “pre-emptive unjust attacks on sovereign nations.” I do not preach on this because I feel this issue has too many contaminating political factors to tease out from what is moral versus what is politically [economics, power, ego] motivated. In this case the question of what is unjust versus what is just would have to be discussed in great detail. Also the issue of what is legal versus illegal would need international clarification. There are too many fuzzy issues to be dealt with and distract us, so at most I make the simple statement that it is wrong [on the face of it] to: “preemptively attack a sovereign nation.” Such topics may be better for a workshop or discussion group, because in such a setting these topics can be more thoroughly examined. However, because this was asked of me now I am stating publicly my position. A little interesting sidebar: At the beginning of this war I was contacted by the Chief of Chaplains at a local Military base. I have served as a CAP-USAF Chaplain at McGuire AFB for many years and although no longer active “signed in” 6 years ago at the local military base, when I transferred to Southern California from NJ. I did this because I am still responsible for emergency duty. I was asked to take the place of the Orthodox Chaplain who was just deployed to Iraq. In the process of setting up the contract (which never went through because of budget problems in Washington) the Chief of Chaplains said to me something like: “You know Father, despite the official press many of us, not only Chaplains, but high ranking Military on base feel this war is really wrong”. –let this statement speak for itself. I do not think it incompatible or inappropriate for Orthodox to speak about ‘Social’ issues. In fact it is imperative. Based on my reading of the Church Fathers, what distinguishes us from others who label themselves Christian is that we ground our social intervention on personal: theosis, deification and Christ indwelling in us, and our focus on Him at the core of our hearts or our nous. Many modern Christians define their Christianity by the “social element.” For us as Orthodox, social intervention, charity, and loving “one another as I have loved you”: is an outpouring of Christ indwelling in us. In the Acts of the Apostles, St Luke (2:42-47) tells us of the early Christians: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.” Notice this comes after the Eucharist, the indwelling of Christ in us and we in turn give to others in thanksgiving of what He has given us. There are so many saints of the church that model this: the unmercenary physicians being one example, the great St. Nicholas being another, etc, etc.
Despite the length of the above this is not what motivated my initial post. What motivated me was the pernicious, subtle heresy of secularism and political correctness that is invading the Orthodox Church. Last year a heretical article was published in The Word magazine calling for Woman’s Ordination. The Orthodox Christian Laity and other Feminist so called “Orthodox” groups are trying to change the teaching given to us by Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. As I mentioned in a previous post I wrote the editor of The Word and our Bishops pleading for an official statement from our Archdiocese on these issues. I know many of our priests also wrote our Metropolitan and our other Bishops on this issue. I know there was much consternation by many priests and laity on this issue in my Archdiocese. What is so pernicious about this modern heresy is that it masks itself as “secular-democratic (& in the U.S.: American) fairness”. I pray this trepidation exists among all the body of Christ in all Orthodox jurisdictions. My focus in my posting is that this was a Resolution “unanimous and without dissent” by the entire assembly. The councilor model of the church exists on every level of our church. This is simply an affirmation of what is Orthodox on this level of the church the: Body of Christ of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. I pray a Pan-Orthodox Council would pass such a Resolution which would then be part of the “Canons” of the Church in every Patriarchate, Metropolitinate, Archdiocese, Diocese, and Parish in the entire Church. …in the name of the healing Christ, who heals all our infirmities ..unworthy priest George

[Justin]

Fr. George,

How will this resolution effect people at the parish level? If I go to an Antiochian parish, and I consider the recent pre-emptive war (in Iraq) to not be evil or incorrect, do I have confess this as a sin?

Personally, I agree with what you said when you said "pre-emptive unjust attacks against sovereign nations is wrong". But "unjust" is the key (subjective) word there. The resolution leaves no room for movement, no room for debate. Pre-emptive war is wrong. Period. In essence, according to the resolution there is no such thing as a just pre-emptive war. I'm not saying that everyone should be fine with the war; I just don't understand why the concept of a pre-emptive war needs to be condemned alongside things that have been condemned for thousands of years like gay marriage, abortion, etc. Is there really no room for disagreement on the issue?

[Justin]

PS.

I do apologize, Fr. George, for taking the thread in the direction it has gone by focusing on the pre-emptive war part. I guess the other condemnations just came as obvious and expected to me. I was horrified to read, at the end of Women and the Priesthood, Fr. Thomas Hopko say that there were actually Orthodox theologians who supported female clergy. But I guess I considered this so extremely fringe that I saw a condemnation of it to be normal and tame, and even expected.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Pre-emptive? I think that is an inappropriate term to describe the current actions in Iraq. It was used by those opposed to the war and popularized by the press, but I do not think it holds up to close examination. There was nothing "pre-emptive" about it. Iraq was in clear violation of the UN resolutions which mandated the use of force if necessary. We can, I guess, debate whether or not such force WAS necessary, but I do not believe it was "pre-emptive". It was AFTER Iraq illegally annexed another sovereign nation and repeatedly, over a decade, ignored the mandates imposed by the world deliberative body of the UN because of that.

I think we can agree that attacking another country "pre-emptively" because we think it is going to hurt us if we don't is not a good thing to do. Where we will no doubt continue to disagree, is whether or not that actually applies in this case.

[Father Anthony]

Thanks to Fr. George Morelli for his comments. I can not imagine that anyone - unless motivated by some political agenda - could claim that our attack on Iraq was anything but a "pre-emptive war." Now...for the record...I am well-known to be a bit of a radical right-wing sort...somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh and John Birch [:-)>>>>>>> - yet Christian morality has to take the front seat.

Regarding "pre-emptive war" it should be noted that the Moscow Patriarchate, in it's year 2000 Great Sobor dealt with that subject. Consider that after nearly a century of persecution and the inability to speak freely, the Church in Russia - when finally free to do so - called that Sobor and ultimately issued its "Base of Social Doctrine" document which deals with almost every conceivable moral and social issue of our times. And it remains the *only* Patriarchate to have done so!

In that decree, it was clearly and unambiguously stated that pre-emptive war is morally wrong. As a Priest of the Russian Church, that certainly settles it for me. It also removes the issue from the political area so that I can (and do) preach about it.

Regarding Herman Blaydoe's comments about the war in Iraq being not pre-emptive, but a result of Iraq being in "clear violation of the UN resolutions..." ... nonsense! The United States, as a nation, has no obligation nor any right to police the world, nor does it do so. It does not take military action except where it can get away with it. It does not support UN resolutions except as they benefit the US (imagine the US waging war against Canada, Great Britain, or any other ally because one of those allies was in "violation" of any UN resolutions!

He also wrote: "I think we can agree that attacking another country "pre-emptively" because we think it is going to hurt us if we don't is not a good thing to do."

Yet that is *exactly* the *stated* reason that we invaded Iraq: those now-known-not-to-exist weapons of mass destruction.

We have to set aside our political ideologies and base these decisions on Christian morality and the teachings of the Church. I have advised military personnel who are my spiritual children to resign because of the sinful actions they would be required to be part of if they remain in the military.

These are not easy positions for a self-described "radical right-winger" to take, but in good conscience I can't do anything else.

Fr. Anthony

[Owen Jones]

Such moral pronouncements and condemnations from the Church about things it has no control over is just silly, and leads to a further weakening of the Church's credibility. Let's get real. In 1962, the U.S. engaged in an act of pre-emptive war against Cuba, by blockading the country. In international law, a blockade is an act of war. We succeeded in getting the Russians to back down and remove the missles from Cuba. We simply could not tolerate having offensive nuclear missles stationed 90 miles from our shores.

Would not a pre-emptive war against Hitler have saved the world millions of lives, if he had been opposed before he was militarily strong?

The French engaged in a pre-emptive war by proxy against Britain by helping the American colonists, without whose assistance, American would not have gained its independence (for good or for ill).

This nonsense about condemning pre-emptive war is a case of moral posturing without substance or meaning. Regarding Iraq, whether Iraq had WMD or not (there are many signs that it did, and removed what it had to Syria prior to the war), America could not afford to wait until a foreign power, supportive of terrorism, sold a nuclear weapon to a terrorist faction which then sets it off in New York City.

A President of a nation is not bound by the moral pronouncements of the church when millions of lives and the survival of his nation are at stake. The Church simply cannot impose the same kind of moral demands for a person on a nation or a nation's political leaders. A political leader has to become immoral in order to be an effective defender of his nation. Survival is more important than morality, at the national level. Churchill knew in advance about the planned attack on Coventry, but to evacuate the city, he would have exposed the fact that the British had broken the German code. He acted immorally, condemning to death tens of thousands of his own innocent civilians, in exchange for the long term goal of defeating the Nazis. On the personal level, that kind of utilitarian moral calculus is worthy of condemnation. But at the national political level, there are frequently only choices between two bad alternatives.

At the personal level, martyrdom among the faithful is an honor and gift. To impose martyrdom on a nation as a badge of spiritual honor is a case of religion gone crazy.

In the struggle against terrorism, pre-emptive action is the only logical response. One unfortunately has to adopt some of the immorality of the terrorists in order to prevent total destruction.

Personally, I think for a priest to counsel his young males not to join the military because the U.S. took pre-emptive action against Iraq to be stupid and churlish. One has to at least be consistent with one's preaching. If a priest counsels his flock to be faithful to the point of not participating in any violence conducted by the state, then tell your flock not to pay their taxes, and then you can minister to all of them in prison!

[Fr. George Morelli]

To all: Glory to Jesus Christ! I am somewhat shocked and dismayed that this thread has taken the preemptive unjust war string …I guess this is quite important to those who are posting. I think it important but as I intimated in a previous post this issue is a political minefield.
I would have thought that the “modernist-secular-politically correct-moral relativist” teachings condemned by the Antiochian Resolution is of such great importance. The issues of abortion, gay marriage, woman priesthood speaks directly to the teaching of the church given to us by Christ which St Jude (3) tells us: “which was once for all delivered to the saints.” --now under attack. I view this ‘heresy’ as equivalent to the Christological issues confronting the first few centuries of the Church. Abortion: the Incarnation from the moment of Mary’s acceptance of God’s call when she said: “Be it done unto me according to thy word” (Lk 1:38) The Annunciation, thus conception, life occurs 9 months before birth. [Associated devaluation of life: euthanasia, cloning, stem cell research, etc.] Gay marriage: Trinitarian love of the Persons to one another and creation as an act of God’s love and God’s faithful commitment to us by sending His Son for our salvation-:husband and wife united in one flesh and participating in God’s creation by their commitment to one another as Christ is the Bridegroom and we are His Bride (2 Cor 11:2). As Christ took on our flesh and made a total commitment to us “even to death on the cross”, husband and wife, male and female (Eph 5:21-35) united in one flesh giving birth to new life made in God’s image. Woman’s priesthood: a denial of the Fatherhood of God (Mat 5:16), the Sonship of Christ (Jn 20:21), the One True Priest, who was incarnate as male and thus the ordained instruments and icons of His Sonship: male apostles and their successors male bishops-priests-deacons the proper icon of the “Son of God.” –who when ordaining His apostles said “do this in memory of me.” (Lk 22:19) etc. I really thought this ‘heresy’ so important that any threads would be mostly on these topics ----the heart of the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ. Just a reflection …. In Christ ..FrGeorge

[Herman Blaydoe]

Personally, I think for a priest to counsel his young males not to join the military because the U.S. took pre-emptive action against Iraq to be stupid and churlish.

And counseling his "spiritual children" to resign from the military is an insult to every man and woman who serves to defend his right to be stupid and churlish.

If everyone followed his ill-considered advice, how long might this country be able to guarantee those freedoms? May my youngest son proudly serve his country even as his older brother has, and even as I did. And may Fr. Anthony long enjoy his freedom, earned by our blood, sweat and tears.

[Father Anthony]

Herman Blaydoe wrote:


If everyone followed his ill-considered advice, how long might this country be able to guarantee those freedoms? May my youngest son proudly serve his country even as his older brother has, and even as I did. And may Fr. Anthony long enjoy his freedom, earned by our blood, sweat and tears.

One might have guessed that the comments came from a military family. But my own father's service in the Army c. WW2, my older brother's in the Marines and mine in Viet Nam notwithstanding, I have new responsibilities, now.

It's also a sin to be angry, by the way...

I've had enough of this thread, and won't respond again so, as O'Reilly would say, "You can have the last word."

Fr. Anthony

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

To all: Glory to Jesus Christ! I am somewhat shocked and dismayed that this thread has taken the pre-emptive unjust war string …I guess this is quite important to those who are posting. I think it important but as I intimated in a previous post this issue is a political minefield.
I would have thought that the “modernist-secular-politically correct-moral relativist” teachings condemned by the Antiochian Resolution is of such great importance. The issues of abortion, gay marriage, woman priesthood speaks directly to the teaching of the church given to us by Christ

In contrast with Rev.Fr.George Morelli's honest introduction I also quote the legitimate question by brother Herman Blaydoe:


If everyone followed his ill-considered advice, how long might this country be able to guarantee those freedoms?

How is it possible to compromise the "now and here" of current life with the "future and there” of the after-life?

I think that the answer to this question is attempted to be given in all posts in this thread. The answer is not formulated in a direct manner, but it is being framed in the scheme: “let me be now in a “proper way” or else the “future way” is meaningless”. (Except the posts by Mr Owen which address the issue in a direct way)

If we accept or deny the proper way of “pre-emptive war”- “abortion” - “gay marriage” - “woman priesthood” what impact do these denials or acceptances have in the future way of being in after-life. I say this, because everyone in this thread seems to accept after-life “life” and the issue seems to be what the justification of current life is in relation with the life beyond “now and here”.

It seems like saying that whoever is right “now and here” will also be right “then and there”. So, the war-defenders and the abortion activists and the gay rights supporters and the woman-ordination justifiers and their opponents result into conflict in tearing apart the continuity of now-future and of here-there by standing in the most solid foundation,respectively considered as such. Those who choose the solidness of “now and here” go over the one side and the others that choose the solidness of “there in the future” go over the other side.

Well, I guess that “now” and “future” and “here” and “there” are parts of ourselves. They can not exist without us; they need us as much as we need them.

I think that “those freedoms worth fighting for” and “the teachings of the Church” are so important because of us. It is us that being protected by them, and not the other way around.

Well, brothers if we abandon the freedoms and leave the teachings unguarded what will be the result? I think the result will be the same as defending the freedoms from persecutors and keeping the teachings against the falsifier: us.

Just, plain, us.

Does it matter where and when we are? Does it make any difference at all?
Once, St Serapheim of Sarov asked from a young nun to die in her brother’s place, because he needed him in building a monastery. His assistant was very ill and was about to die, so St Serapheim prayed for him to the Most Holy Mother of God and she informed him that this could be accepted if the dying’s sister was to die in his place. St Serapheim asked his assistant’s sister if she would agree to die instead of her brother, she answered yes and then she got ill and died while her brother got well and lived.

Once, in a hospital in my town there was an old monk from a monastery from Mount Athos. He was hospitalized for pathological illness and he was about to die. In the evening he asked for his coffee, he drunk it peacefully as if this was not his last coffee and then he lay on his bed and died in peace. The doctor that witnessed his death was saying with wonder and astonishment: “it was like he was drinking his coffee before departure for a trip, it was like he was doing the most common act that he was doing every evening, to drink a coffee, only this time the old monk knew that it was the last one and that after that he was going to die. Is this the way that Orthodox dies, like living?"

When we break the continuity of time and space, either within Church, or from outside, we “protect” ourselves but who is the enemy?

May God bless us, all.

Leandros

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

I have advised military personnel who are my spiritual children to resign because of the sinful actions they would be required to be part of if they remain in the military

Fr Anthony,

you are the only one who will answer to the Lord for your given directive to your children. This is your privilege and responsibility. It is also a privilege and responsibility of your spiritual children to stay under your guidance or to submit themselves to another father. I may agree or disagree with your advice (actually I think it is too austere), but my opinion has nothing to do with the life of Church - my opinion is a matter of dialectic conclusion.

It is a blessing for the Church to have spiritual children, like yours, that are willing to implement the blessed way of life against the “normal” way of life.

It is also an ancient well established practise of the Church for spiritual fathers, on certain life-wide matters of guidance, to get specific blessing from their Bishops and then to apply the resolution upon their spiritual children, because the Bishop is the "official voice" of the Church and he stands in the place and as the mouthpiece of Christ. There is a hierarchy of blessing: the children are blessed by their spiritual father, the spiritual father is blessed by the Bishop, the Bishop has the witness of the Church and the whole Church is blessed by the Grace of Lord.

The importance is in the blessing and not in the “justification” of advice. What constitutes the spiritual path is the stepping from blessing to blessing.

Maybe another spiritual father would have advised his children with a different resolution on the same issue. He would have to answer to Lord for his action, just like you, and his children would have been blessed just like yours.

There is confusion in some Orthodox Christians when two fathers give different advices, but this is a common practise in the Life of Church. The uniformity is restricted and it is enforced only in Dogma and Faith issues. There is also common practise for a spiritual father to give different advices to two distinct spiritual children on the same issue. It is like a physician who gives different personalized prescription to each and every patient. The spiritual treatment heals the specific ill person and does not provide ready-made medicine for the illness. The spiritual father is not a super-market of medicines.

So, what validates spiritual father’s guidance is the holy stole around his neck which was put by the Bishop when he was ordained with the pleasure of the Church, in Spirit.

May God bless us, all.

Leandros

[nurse-aid]

For doctor Fr. Morelli, the proper son of our Lord:


Glory to the Mighty that makes me be HIS son:


Glory to the Mighty who born me out dust! To life… to live in Christ!

Glory to the Mighty Light who shows me way! In all my trials, day by day!

Glory to the Mighty strength which I was given, bleeding, but sustained!

Glory to the Mighty to guide my way, over the fears, over the fames to stillness flame!

Glory to the Mighty for love which gives me wings! To fly up high, forgive myself in sins!

Glory to the Mighty for peace which gives me life, to live anew, to open widely eyes!

Glory to the Mighty for love and care of those…Who sends by Him, who let me grew like as tiny rose!

Glory to Mighty for others who are sick! To see their pain, to ask HIM to forgive!

Glory to the Mighty for Loves me as I’m, to die for me and for the chance be New, new me again!

Glory to the Mighty that makes me be HIS son…How can it be my Lord? It is beyond my psalm!

[C. Bond]

BTW, any rational discussion of Iraq ought to include 9/11. Most critiques of the Iraq campaign studiously avoid mention of 9/11.

Because opposition requires that Iraq be unlinked from terrorism. One of the many reasons Orthodoxy is potentially appealling to conservative Americans is that the Orthodox are much less likely to drink the "Christianity is socialism" kool-aid all other Christian churches regularly imbibe.

I am an American. I support my nation in time of war. If anyone has a problem with that, clerical or not, it's not my problem.