Why are bishops celibate?

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Friends,

I am an evangelical Christian who has been interested in Orthodoxy for a number of years, but hasn't really had the chance to ask the many questions on my heart regarding your faith. I would like to ask one now.

One of the things that has attracted me to Orthodoxy (as opposed to Catholicism) is what appears to be a more biblical position on priestly celibacy. And yet, if I'm not mistaken, at least some Orthodox churches require that their bishops be celibates taken from the monasteries.

This Lord's Day our assembly of worship was reading the following verse from St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians 9:5: "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

It would seem Paul is indicating that while he himself was single, the rest of the apostles and brothers of Jesus were married, and furthermore, that it was their right as apostles to be married. This fact, combined with Paul's command to Timothy that Bishops be the husband of one wife (1 Tim 3), would suggest to me that the apostolic tradition clearly and unequivocably indicates that Bishops have the divine right to be married.

Why, then, are bishops in the Eastern churches forbidden to marry?

In Christ,
Shawn

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Shawn,

First of all, it should be noted that bishops are not denied the right to marry. One chooses whether to be celibate or to be married. A priest knows full well before being ordained that, if he wishes to marry, he must do so before being ordained. Likewise, a bishop knows that he will not be allowed to marry if he is consecrated. Thus, a priest or bishop decides for himself whether or not to marry; no one forces him to choose celibacy.

Second, we should note that St Paul is not commanding bishops to be the husband of one wife. In other words, while it was allowed during his time, it was not absolutely required as St Paul himself was not married. What St Paul was requiring was that a bishop not be divorced and/or married more than once.

Third, we should note that the Tradition of the Church is a living Tradition. Circumstances may arise that require a change in the Church's practices or policies due to historical or political circumstances. Note that this change is not a change in dogma, but a change in practice. The circumstances of Christianity in the 1st century were much different than they are today. My bishop, for example, is gone nearly every weekend visiting a parish in another state. How could he maintain a healthy family life with all of the work he has to do during the week administratively and then leave on the weekend?

Aaron

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for your answer, unfortunately I'm not quite sure I understand your first point. I thought I did, but upon re-reading it, I'm not so sure. You wrote:


First of all, it should be noted that bishops are not denied the right to marry. One chooses whether to be celibate or to be married. A priest knows full well before being ordained that, if he wishes to marry, he must do so before being ordained. Likewise, a bishop knows that he will not be allowed to marry if he is consecrated. Thus, a priest or bishop decides for himself whether or not to marry; no one forces him to choose celibacy.

So, are you saying that bishops ARE allowed to be married in the Orthodox church? So long as they marry BEFORE being consecrated as priest (and then later as a bishop)?

In Christ,
Shawn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Lazar,

Firstly, welcome to the Discussion Community. I hope you enjoy the conversations here.

Secondly, Aaron has provided an excellent 'first response' to your questions about the celibacy of the episcopacy, to which I wouldn't wish to add much. The only thing I think would be a helpful point of clarity is that bishops, per se, aren't required to be celibate; monks are celibate. The reason that bishops are celibate is because, at least since the sixth century, bishops are drawn from the monks. So celibacy is not so much a 'requirement' of the episcopal office as it is a normal part of the monastic vocation, and the ministry of the episcopacy is understood as a vocation of monastic discipline. As such, the 'end result' is, indeed, that all bishops are celibate, but this is (at least technically) because they are monks, not because they are bishops.

This distinction, which I suppose at some level might seem pedantic, is actually quite important, as it discloses the nature of episcopal ministry as a monastic office, which is an additional portion of its distinction from the priesthood -- a topic of discussion that might be interesting here in its own right.

As a point of clarification, Aaron wrote:


First of all, it should be noted that bishops are not denied the right to marry. One chooses whether to be celibate or to be married. A priest knows full well before being ordained that, if he wishes to marry, he must do so before being ordained. Likewise, a bishop knows that he will not be allowed to marry if he is consecrated. Thus, a priest or bishop decides for himself whether or not to marry; no one forces him to choose celibacy.

To which you replied:


So, are you saying that bishops ARE allowed to be married in the Orthodox church? So long as they marry BEFORE being consecrated as priest (and then later as a bishop)?

The answer here is 'no': whilst historically there were married bishops (in the first centuries of the Church), since it became the practice that the bishops are drawn from the monastics, there are not married bishops in the Orthodox Church. The ability to choose marriage or celibacy precedes the office. Does one wish to be a monastic? Or to live the married life? This is a decision that is open to each person. Once that decision is made and that manner of life entered into, differing ministerial roles are available: a man in either state can be made a priest. Only a married man can become a father, a parent; only a monastic can become a bishop. Neither is 'better' than the other, but the roles are different for different ways of living in the Church as a single body of many members.

(The exception is, of course, widowed men, who may be consecrated bishop after the death of their spouse; but this is rather case in point, since such men are generally tonsured monks first, then, as monks, may be raised to the episcopate.)

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

I would like to note that not all bishops have been tonsured monks in the Greek and/or Antiochian tradition, which are generally quite parallel. My understanding is that the canon guiding the selection of a bishop in the Greek tradition merely states that the man must not be "living with a wife."

There are bishops who are not monks, but all bishops are celibate.

Aaron

[Father David Moser]

(The exception is, of course, widowed men, who may be consecrated bishop after the death of their spouse; but this is rather case in point, since such men are generally tonsured monks first, then, as monks, may be raised to the episcopate.)
[/I]

Actually that exception can extend even further, in two particulars. If a married man is divorced by his wife he can enter monastic life. (I know of some clergy who are monastics because of this situation.) If the divorce was not of his doing, then it might be possible to be consecrated a bishop. Also, a married man can become a monastic provided that both he and his wife have a desire to do so. They go to separate monasteries and live out their lives in their own monastic community rather than in the community of their marriage. Such a man - because he is a monastic - *could be* consecrated to the episcopacy. I won't say that it does happen - but it could.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I would like to note that not all bishops have been tonsured monks in the Greek and/or Antiochian tradition, which are generally quite parallel. My understanding is that the canon guiding the selection of a bishop in the Greek tradition merely states that the man must not be "living with a wife."

There are bishops who are not monks, but all bishops are celibate.

Aaron, do you know of any bishop who was not made a monk prior to consecration? I realise it is somewhat common for non-monastic priests or others to be 'monasticised' in only a technical sense before consecration to the episcopacy; but normally this technical sense is still at least observed.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Yes, I do know of at least one bishop that was not tonsured until a few years ago. He was a bishop--and a good one at that--for many years before he received the tonsure. If you are interested in discussing this particular case more, please send me a private e-mail.

[Shawn Lazar]

Thank you all for your responses. They were very helpful in understanding the question.

I do, however, have another question, if you don't mind me asking. If, as someone wrote, there were married bishops in the church of the first centuries, including, of course, the Biblical witness to many of the apostles being married, and their right to do so - where does this change in practice come in?

Or, perhaps I should put it this way - if the right of bishops to be married is part and parcel of apostolic tradition (being witnessed to in Scripture and in the earliest traditions of the church), how then can the rules be changed or modified so that bishops must now be celibate? Is it a matter of distinguishing between apostolic dogma which cannot change, and apostolic practice which can? Would this be similar to the Roman churches' insistence that their priests be celibate?

In Christ,
Shawn

[Herman Blaydoe]

The office of deacon was established by the Apostles, not by Christ, as was the distinction between priest and bishop later on. Therefore I don't think it unreasonable that the Church has the authority to determine what constitutes acceptable qualifications of its clergy. If the Catholic Church wants all of its clergy celibate, then I do not think they exceed their authority even if I question the pastoral expediency of such a policy. All things are lawful, says the Apostle Paul, but not all things edify. Recent issues within the Catholic Church seem to bear this out.

The Orthodox Church could someday decide to allow married bishops once again, and would be well within its rights to do so, but for now I guess we have decided to defer to the advice of the Holy Apostle Paul that the unmarried man is loyal first to Christ and how he might please Him, while the married man must worry about how to please his wife. I guess we have decided that such a burden is OK for priests, but not to so burden our bishops!

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Shawn,

I hestitate to post given the high level of understanding of the Orthodox faith among so many of the posters here, but I was taught the change to celebate bishops excusively originated in large part due to certain social conditions of that era. Back then people not only had larger families than today, it was customary for one or more sons to follow in the profession of their fathers. So if one's father was a priest or a bishop, it was likely that you would follow in your father's footsteps and enter the clergy yourself. This created the situation where parishes and dioceses in certain areas became the functional inhereted legacies of clerical families. They came to see what belonged to the whole Church as somehow belonging by right to their families. This was an intollerable situation.

Since monastacism was still in more or less its first great flowering and monks on the whole were considered trustworthy in the service of the Lord, and they did not leave their belongings to their natural family this seemed like a good pool to chose from when selecting new bishops. It gave a better guaranttee of the character of the man and it cut off the forces of inheritance convention that threatened the good order of the Church. It worked out well enough and so has persisted until now.

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Robert,

Thanks for your reply. That was my understanding too, at least, that's the reason I had been given in another context to explain the priestly celibacy of the Catholic churches. Of course, I was told that on hearsay, so I can't say I've taken steps to check the facts. I guess I'll keep on looking.

In Christ,
Shawn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Lazar,

This is proving an interesting thread. In your most recent post, you wrote:


If, as someone wrote, there were married bishops in the church of the first centuries, including, of course, the Biblical witness to many of the apostles being married, and their right to do so - where does this change in practice come in?

The widespread movement towards an eposcopacy drawn from the monastics, rather than from the married clergy, seems to have occurred somewhere towards the sixth century. To be clear, it was the de facto norm in many places far earlier than this; but it seems to have been around the sixth century that what had become more and more the usual practice was settled on as the norm.

I've been intrigued by Aaron's comments, above, on non-monastic bishops. There seems to be an interesting set of historical questions here. The quinisext council (held in 692) includes a canon that admonishes bishops not to 'cast away' their wives; and the ancient canonists comment that this rules they should not abandon them, but are not to live with them. This clearly indicates that married bishops were still common enough to warrant a canon at the end of the seventh century. It has also led to the kind of reading one finds in a related Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy):


"While some incorrectly believe all Orthodox bishops must be monks, in fact, according to church law, they simply may no longer be living with their wives if they are to be consecrated to the episcopacy. (The canons stipulate that they must also see to their wives' maintenance. See Canon 12 of the Quinisext Council.) Typically, the wife of such a man will take up the monastic life herself, though this also is not required. There are many Orthodox bishops currently serving who have never been tonsured (formally initiated) to monastic orders. There are also many who are tonsured monastics but have never formally lived the monastic life. Further, a number of bishops are widowers, but because clergy cannot remarry after ordination, such a man must remain celibate after the death of his wife."

Perhaps. I am still not certain as to the stipulation on non-monastic bishops; I would be keen to know more about instances in which someone has been, in the modern era, consecrated to the episcopacy as a non-monastic person, without taking tonsure (as I mentioned before, it is common enough for the tonsure to be given as a kind of 'preamble' to the consecration, especially in the case of widows who are elevated to the episcopacy -- who are generally not monks in a vocational sense, but tend still to be 'formally' made at least rassophores before consecration).


Or, perhaps I should put it this way - if the right of bishops to be married is part and parcel of apostolic tradition (being witnessed to in Scripture and in the earliest traditions of the church), how then can the rules be changed or modified so that bishops must now be celibate? Is it a matter of distinguishing between apostolic dogma which cannot change, and apostolic practice which can? Would this be similar to the Roman churches' insistence that their priests be celibate?

I would find it somewhat odd to argue that being married is a 'right' of bishops in the apostolic tradition. The living body of the Church has a great many customs that develop and change over time. If one were bound to the exact practicalities of the mid-first century body, almost nothing known to our ecclesiology would stand as it is.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From Wiki


"While some incorrectly believe all Orthodox bishops must be monks, in fact, according to church law, they simply may no longer be living with their wives if they are to be consecrated to the episcopacy. (The canons stipulate that they must also see to their wives' maintenance. See Canon 12 of the Quinisext Council.) Typically, the wife of such a man will take up the monastic life herself, though this also is not required. There are many Orthodox bishops currently serving who have never been tonsured (formally initiated) to monastic orders. There are also many who are tonsured monastics but have never formally lived the monastic life. Further, a number of bishops are widowers, but because clergy cannot remarry after ordination, such a man must remain celibate after the death of his wife."

And then Matthew S wrote about this



Perhaps. I am still not certain as to the stipulation on non-monastic bishops; I would be keen to know more about instances in which someone has been, in the modern era, consecrated to the episcopacy as a non-monastic person, without taking tonsure (as I mentioned before, it is common enough for the tonsure to be given as a kind of 'preamble' to the consecration, especially in the case of widows who are elevated to the episcopacy -- who are generally not monks in a vocational sense, but tend still to be 'formally' made at least rassophores before consecration).

I think this is a good example of how canonicity isn't necessarily what is stipulated by individual canons but rather what the Church's current practice is.

I am really quite sure the Wiki quote is wrong and that this as Matthew S suggests is a reference to a past stage in the episcopacy that no longer applies. Nowadays and for many centuries now even widowed priests who become bishops have been tonsured as monastics before consecration to the episcopacy. In other words one must be a monk to be a bishop in present-day canonical practice.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Fr Raphael and Matthew,

Please forgive, I do not intend to be harsh. However, the Wiki quote provided by Matthew is absolutely correct with regard to modern Antiochene practice. I will e-mail you privately in case you wish to discuss further.

Your prayers.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr Raphael and Matthew,

Please forgive, I do not intend to be harsh. However, the Wiki quote provided by Matthew is absolutely correct with regard to modern Antiochene practice. I will e-mail you privately in case you wish to discuss further.

Your prayers.

Aaron

No problem! This is just a discussion. If there is some way to show that there are indeed bishops who have not been tonsured as monastics then this would be helpful to know.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I should clarify though that the main purpose of this is to ask, if there are indeed bishops who are not tonsured as monastics, whether this is the really result of a separate canonical tradition.

[Olga]

As an aside, it is common practice (amongst the Greeks, at least) for a widowed priest of many years' service to be given the honorary title of Archimandrite on his retirement from active priesthood.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Perhaps a slight clarification, as I am still curious about this matter. The clarification relates to the precise relationship to the monastic life that is often required of bishops: it is not precisely correct to say that all bishops are tonsured monastics. Tonsure corresponds to a certain degree of entry into the monastic life (generally at the giving of the schema); but, as above, most non-monastics who become bishops are made rassophore monks - a stage which does not necessarily involve tonsure (only 'clothing' in the rasson). This is, for example, particularly common in Russia.

In such cases, the bishop in question is not a tonsured monk, but is still a monastic: a rassophore.

(As an aside, the rules on rassophores not living in a monastery are often quite less strict than for tonsured monastics; namely, one can often eat meat, etc.)

The main point here is that there might be some confusion as to certain traditions vis-a-vis the monastic stature of their bishops. So far as I am aware, it is simply not the practice for bishops not to be monastics, at least 'technically' vis-a-vis having been clothed in the rasson prior to (or, in some cases, as part of) their episcopal consecration. Is the thought that some traditions have non-monastic bishops a confusion over the stature of the rassophore vis-a-vis full tonsure? (This is a genuine question: it may well be possible that a truly non-monastic bishop exists in some church - but this would be so out-of-the-ordinary that all my inklings lean toward a strong suspicion of this!)

INXC, Matthew

NB: I have known rassophore bishops who later in life, after long years in the episcopacy, have gone to monasteries and taken the full tonsure, entering into a higher degree of the monastic life. But this does not mean they were not monastics before. As in so many things, there is a question of degree.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear all,

Perhaps a slight clarification, as I am still curious about this matter. The clarification relates to the precise relationship to the monastic life that is often required of bishops: it is not precisely correct to say that all bishops are tonsured monastics. Tonsure corresponds to a certain degree of entry into the monastic life (generally at the giving of the schema); but, as above, most non-monastics who become bishops are made rassophore monks - a stage which does not necessarily involve tonsure (only 'clothing' in the rasson). This is, for example, particularly common in Russia.

In such cases, the bishop in question is not a tonsured monk, but is still a monastic: a rassophore.

(As an aside, the rules on rassophores not living in a monastery are often quite less strict than for tonsured monastics; namely, one can often eat meat, etc.)

The main point here is that there might be some confusion as to certain traditions vis-a-vis the monastic stature of their bishops. So far as I am aware, it is simply not the practice for bishops not to be monastics, at least 'technically' vis-a-vis having been clothed in the rasson prior to (or, in some cases, as part of) their episcopal consecration. Is the thought that some traditions have non-monastic bishops a confusion over the stature of the rassophore vis-a-vis full tonsure? (This is a genuine question: it may well be possible that a truly non-monastic bishop exists in some church - but this would be so out-of-the-ordinary that all my inklings lean toward a strong suspicion of this!)

INXC, Matthew

NB: I have known rassophore bishops who later in life, after long years in the episcopacy, have gone to monasteries and taken the full tonsure, entering into a higher degree of the monastic life. But this does not mean they were not monastics before. As in so many things, there is a question of degree.

I had not heard before that bishops could be only ryassaphores. When I was in the OCA and lived at St Tikhon's Monastery those elected to the episcopacy were sent to the monastery where they were tonsured as small schema monastics. I'd be surprised to hear that ROCOR doesn't also require prospective bishops to be at least small schema.

Maybe the confusion as you say is coming from the difference in practice between ryassaphore and small schema. It just dawned on me about one way to tell if a bishop is a monastic- if you have ever seen him wear a klebuk then he's a monastic.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Maybe the confusion as you say is coming from the difference in practice between ryassaphore and small schema. It just dawned on me about one way to tell if a bishop is a monastic- if you have ever seen him wear a klebuk then he's a monastic.

Another element that may contribute to the confusion might be the difference between Russian monastic practice and Greek/Byzantine monastic practice. In Russian Practice, one goes from novice to ryassophore to small schema and finally possibly to great schema. But in Greek/Byzantine practice (at least where I am familiar with it) there is no "small schema" but a ryassophore is tonsured and becomes a "stavrophore" monk - the equivalent of the great schema. Without the small schema "step" it might certainly be expected for bishops in the Byzantine tradition Churches (in NA that would be primarily Greek and Antiochian) to be only ryassophore.

Fr David Moser

[Olympiada]

Dear Monachos.net,

I have been following this thread with some interest and I am amazed that ever since this thought of married bishops was inserted into my mind it has become a serious topic of discussion in different communities. So now I can not help but wonder, are there any bishops on record who have chosen to step down from the throne, chosen to leave the monastic life and chosen to leave the priesthood and the ranks of the clergy all together and marry? This seems very negative to me but I am curious. What would happen to this man's soul. Or what has happened to these men's souls if any exist? Do they burn in hell? Are they tormented for all eternity? I find this subject disturbing but I have to know.

See I know that a stavorophore monk can never marry. There is no returning to single status. The stavorophore monk must be a stavorophore monk for the rest of eternity.

I do not understand why bishops are monks living in the world. This seems like a highly dangerous occupation to me in today's world personally. I think the practice needs to change personally.

Olympiada

[M.C. Steenberg]

I had not heard before that bishops could be only ryassaphores. When I was in the OCA and lived at St Tikhon's Monastery those elected to the episcopacy were sent to the monastery where they were tonsured as small schema monastics. I'd be surprised to hear that ROCOR doesn't also require prospective bishops to be at least small schema.

I do not know the origination of this practice, but I do know that it is, if not common, at least not unheard of or terribly unusual. But I think that for the purposes of the present discussion, it's worth noting that a rassophore is still very much a monk (esp. in the delineation of monastic ranks in the Russian tradition).

INXC, Matthew

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Friends,

I am glad to read that my question has fostered some good discussions. But I'm afraid that as I've read the posts, they have given rise to grave doubts in my heart and mind which I would like to express here, so that I may be corrected by people who are wiser than I.

Matthew made this remark in response to St. Paul's claim that being married was an apostolic 'right' that he had along with the other apostles:


I would find it somewhat odd to argue that being married is a 'right' of bishops in the apostolic tradition. The living body of the Church has a great many customs that develop and change over time. If one were bound to the exact practicalities of the mid-first century body, almost nothing known to our ecclesiology would stand as it is.

I was thinking precisely the same thing. The conflicting witnesses in the tradition, the changes from the 6th century onwards, the many rules, regulations, and canons that are proposed, amended, changed, and re-applied... all of these, suggest to me that the current practice of ordaining bishops has little or nothing to do with Scripture and the practice of the early church, and everything do to with the cultural context, mores, and church politics of the Orthodox church as it has developed through the centuries. Whereas Matthew does not believe very much in Orthodox ecclesiology would not stand the test of comparing it to first century practice, somehow I do not have the same qualms about my own tradition.

My reaction is to think again to Luther's appeal to Scripture over and above the confusion and contradictory claims of church law and tradition. In other words, the question regarding who may become a bishop undermines, in my eyes, the view that Orthodox life and worship is a continuation, without change, of Apostolic tradition. And if the regulations regarding who may become bishops (ie: the teachers and defenders of the faith) have changed, then it seems probable that the faith itself is liable to change. Or, if the practice of ordaining bishops has been changed over the centuries, then at the very least it would seem I have good reason to believe that other practices may have also been changed, developed or adopted as well, such as the use of icons, relics, infant baptism, liturgy, etc.

I have been told time and time again by evangelical scholars that the church life of the first century bore little resemblance to high-Church practice today which, in the case of Orthodoxy, would have largely been a product of the 6th-8th centuries. Could it be they were right?

In Christ,
Shawn

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Friends,

I am glad to read that my question has fostered some good discussions. But I'm afraid that as I've read the posts, they have given rise to grave doubts in my heart and mind which I would like to express here, so that I may be corrected by people who are wiser than I.

Matthew made this remark in response to St. Paul's claim that being married was an apostolic 'right' that he had along with the other apostles:



I was thinking precisely the same thing. The conflicting witnesses in the tradition, the changes from the 6th century onwards, the many rules, regulations, and canons that are proposed, amended, changed, and re-applied... all of these, suggest to me that the current practice of ordaining bishops has little or nothing to do with Scripture and the practice of the early church, and everything do to with the cultural context, mores, and church politics of the Orthodox church as it has developed through the centuries. Whereas Matthew does not believe very much in Orthodox ecclesiology would not stand the test of comparing it to first century practice, somehow I do not have the same qualms about my own tradition.

My reaction is to think again to Luther's appeal to Scripture over and above the confusion and contradictory claims of church law and tradition. In other words, the question regarding who may become a bishop undermines, in my eyes, the view that Orthodox life and worship is a continuation, without change, of Apostolic tradition. And if the regulations regarding who may become bishops (ie: the teachers and defenders of the faith) have changed, then it seems probable that the faith itself is liable to change. Or, if the practice of ordaining bishops has been changed over the centuries, then at the very least it would seem I have good reason to believe that other practices may have also been changed, developed or adopted as well, such as the use of icons, relics, infant baptism, liturgy, etc.

I have been told time and time again by evangelical scholars that the church life of the first century bore little resemblance to high-Church practice today which, in the case of Orthodoxy, would have largely been a product of the 6th-8th centuries. Could it be they were right?

In Christ,
Shawn

Dear Shawn,

What we are saying is that the Church does change in its expression over time but that it is expressing the same Apostolic Faith. The basic doctrine about the Holy Trinity or Christ remains constant but according to the situations in which this theology has been applied it has indeed changed in expression.

To take the example of bishops then. The Church has always had an eldership who are images of Christ for the Christian community gathered in worship. This is part of the Apostolic Faith which still is witnessed to this day by the Orthodox church in its hierarchy, sense of community, liturgical and sacramental life.

How the eldership expresses this however has changed over time. The change to a monastic episcopacy expresses the ascetic element in how the bishop leads his people. It also provides the bond of love with his people which comes through his separation from this world through his monastic life-style.

Now indeed this is Apostolic and Scriptural in its essential message even if outwardly it is an obvious change from the married elders or bishops of earlier times.

A helpful thing to point out here is that no one is claiming that any one ministry within the Church encompasses every aspect of the Apostolic witness. As St Paul explains each has his/her own talent- some to preach, some to give alms, etc- according to how he/she is called to this by the Holy Spirit within the Church. The same goes for the different ministries within the Church since since no one ministry can encompass the Church's entire witness. Thus also from this perspective we can see that no one ministry, such as the episcopacy, is absolute and all-encompassing and as such it can and has changed in its expression over time.

We would find what's written above "I have been told time and time again by evangelical scholars that the church life of the first century bore little resemblance to high-Church practice today" to be a very loaded statement. "Little resemblance" and "high-Church practice today" give the impression that the change from Apostolic times reflects an essential change between the Apostolic Church and now. The Faith of the Orthodox Church now is consistent
with that of Apostolic times because it is the same Faith but also because it is faithful to the same Apostolic call to apply this same Faith in changing circumstances. These two can never actually be separated without divorcing the Faith either from truth or life. These two must always go together in tandem.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bratislav]

A helpful thing to point out here is that no one is claiming that any one ministry within the Church encompasses every aspect of the Apostolic witness. As St Paul explains each has his/her own talent- some to preach, some to give alms, etc- according to how he/she is called to this by the Holy Spirit within the Church. The same goes for the different ministries within the Church since since no one ministry can encompass the Church's entire witness. Thus also from this perspective we can see that no one ministry, such as the episcopacy, is absolute and all-encompassing and as such it can and has changed in its expression over time.

We would find what's written above "I have been told time and time again by evangelical scholars that the church life of the first century bore little resemblance to high-Church practice today" to be a very loaded statement. "Little resemblance" and "high-Church practice today" give the impression that the change from Apostolic times reflects an essential change between the Apostolic Church and now. The Faith of the Orthodox Church now is consistent with that of Apostolic times because it is the same Faith but also because it is faithful to the same Apostolic call to apply this same Faith in changing circumstances. These two can never actually be separated without divorcing the Faith either from truth or life. These two must always go together in tandem.

In Christ- Fr Raphael




Dear Friends,

I am glad to read that my question has fostered some good discussions. But I'm afraid that as I've read the posts, they have given rise to grave doubts in my heart and mind which I would like to express here, so that I may be corrected by people who are wiser than I.

Matthew made this remark in response to St. Paul's claim that being married was an apostolic 'right' that he had along with the other apostles:



I was thinking precisely the same thing. The conflicting witnesses in the tradition, the changes from the 6th century onwards, the many rules, regulations, and canons that are proposed, amended, changed, and re-applied... all of these, suggest to me that the current practice of ordaining bishops has little or nothing to do with Scripture and the practice of the early church, and everything do to with the cultural context, mores, and church politics of the Orthodox church as it has developed through the centuries. Whereas Matthew does not believe very much in Orthodox ecclesiology would not stand the test of comparing it to first century practice, somehow I do not have the same qualms about my own tradition.

My reaction is to think again to Luther's appeal to Scripture over and above the confusion and contradictory claims of church law and tradition. In other words, the question regarding who may become a bishop undermines, in my eyes, the view that Orthodox life and worship is a continuation, without change, of Apostolic tradition. And if the regulations regarding who may become bishops (ie: the teachers and defenders of the faith) have changed, then it seems probable that the faith itself is liable to change. Or, if the practice of ordaining bishops has been changed over the centuries, then at the very least it would seem I have good reason to believe that other practices may have also been changed, developed or adopted as well, such as the use of icons, relics, infant baptism, liturgy, etc.

I have been told time and time again by evangelical scholars that the church life of the first century bore little resemblance to high-Church practice today which, in the case of Orthodoxy, would have largely been a product of the 6th-8th centuries. Could it be they were right?

In Christ,
Shawn

I think Fr Raphael makes the essential point very nicely. If we demand that the Church through the ages and today be no different from the Church in Apostolic times in matters not only of faith but also of liturgical and other practices we will find that no such Church has ever existed. Such an extreme view of "being true to the earliest Church" will cause even the Apostles to lose Apostolicity.

The Spirit of God is not so rigid as to be unable to allow the Church Her necessary changes throughout time and varying locations. Indeed it is the Spirit of Apostolicity that must be kept and not all the particular Apostolic practices.

In Christ,
Bratislav
Milwaukee,WI

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Shawn,

I appreciate your sincere questions. Regarding the marriage of bishops versus infant baptism, the use of icons, the veneration of relics, etc., you seem to be comparing apples to oranges.

There is a fundamental flaw in the notion that the Church today should be an exact replica of the Church of the 1st Century. The Church during the 1st century was small and persecuted. By and large, that is not the case today, nor was it like that in, for example, the 6th century. As Orthodox Christians, therefore, we are not concerned that bishops were married in the 1st century but they are not today. As you have seen from the discussion, this issue is a practical, not theological, issue. No one has argued theologically against married bishops, nor will you find any such argument in the Orthodox tradition. Instead, there are merely practical reasons.

While I understand your argument, I think it is unreasonable to argue for something that Scripture "allows" without taking into consideration the practical aspects of the modern situation and how this developed. You asked, "Are we to have a blind faith in the Orthodox tradition?" I ask you, "Are we to have a blind faith in what Scripture says?" Are we to take everything that the Scriptures say and apply them today without regard for our modern situation? Does this work and is this reasonable?

You say that, as an evangelical, you are comfortable that your faith is aligned with the faith of the first century. Does your church even have bishops, married or otherwise? Are your church services centered around the Eucharistic communion of believers? Is your church liturgical? I would be surprised if you could honestly answer "yes" to any of these questions, yet "yes" would have been the answer of the Church in the 1st century.

Regarding Luther, I cannot fault him for objecting to certain practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, his Reformation was a major failure and we are living in a time when we can see this clearly. Look how many "evangelical" churches there are that agree that Scripture is the only and final authority, yet they don't agree on what the Scriptures say or how they are to be interpreted. Is that your idea of what the Church was like in the 1st century?

I would recommend that if you have theological questions about icons, relics, infant baptism, etc., that you ask questions about those in separate threads. They are each worthy of their own discussion and tend to be more theological than practical.

Aaron

[Ken McRae]

Matthew made this remark in response to St. Paul's claim that being married was an apostolic 'right' that he had along with the other apostles:

St. Paul also praised the celibate life as a higher calling, and chose it himself. As did the Lord, His Mother, John the Baptist, and most all canonized saints. Study the early Church's view of virginity, (which is fully apostolic in nature,) and its venerable place in the service of Christ, and see if it is not befitting a bishop's calling and position within the Church. No apostolic injunction ever forbade the universal Church, in the fullness of Wisdom, from ever imposing celibacy on the episcopacy at some future time.



I was thinking precisely the same thing. The conflicting witnesses in the tradition, the changes from the 6th century onwards, ... etc. Whereas Matthew does not believe very much in Orthodox ecclesiology would not stand the test of comparing it to first century practice, somehow I do not have the same qualms about my own tradition.

You're kidding yourself, if you really believe that! You talk about conflicting witnesses. You had better take another good and long look at contemporary Evangelicalism, with it's untold number of denominations and heresies! At least one new Protestant sect is spawned every day of the year, based on some new "private" interpretation of Scripture. Do you really, seriously, and sincerely believe that the apostolic witness favors this chaotic devolution?

Do you really think the Apostle's taught that it really does'nt matter if your Church ecclesiology is episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational? And if it is Episcopal, do you really think they'd give their blessing to dissenters who just want to be left alone to believe and do according to their own fallible reading of Scripture? If you are a student of the early Reformers, as it sounds, then you should know they did not bless "denominational pluralism"!

Despite fathering the heresy of Sola Scriptura, I really believe Luther had no idea what kind of future temple this pillar would support, down the road. Had he the gift to see the future, I believe he'd have defended the moral imperative and divine authority of Holy Tradition! Sola Scriptura is the main dogmatic basis for "denominational pluralism", and all the "conflicting witnesses" of your contemporary Evangelicalism!



In other words, the question regarding who may become a bishop undermines, in my eyes, the view that Orthodox life and worship is a continuation, without change, of Apostolic tradition. And if the regulations regarding who may become bishops (ie: the teachers and defenders of the faith) have changed, then it seems probable that the faith itself is liable to change.

As already pointed out, your view of Tradition is incomplete. First and most importantly, Holy Tradition is a living force; it is the very life and mind of the Church herself, faithfully expressed and embodied in the one life and mind of all her Fathers and saints. It is that which is mystically transmitted through her, by participation in her liturgical and sacramental life, and by fellowship with the saints. St. Paul calls it the life of the resurrection and the power of godliness. Thus, he says "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33)," and to "follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them," that is to say, with the saints who "call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Tim 2:22)." Why? Well, in part, because of the power of godliness in them, and its mystical transmission to, and formation within us, by way of a close fellowship and association with them! And so we read in the Scriptures of how even the apostle's shadow worked wonders upon the faithful. Thus, to dwell even in the shadow of the Church (and her true children) is to be affected in many holy and mysterious ways, some of which we are conscious of, and some of which we are not, at least not until much later in life. When you understand holy Tradition in this manner, as the living and abiding power of godliness within the Church, and as the resurrection life of Christ imparted through her Divine Liturgy and Sacraments, and through the fellowship of the saints, then you'll find yourself properly positioned for exploring the more peripheral questions!



I have been told time and time again by evangelical scholars that the church life of the first century bore little resemblance to high-Church practice today ...

If all you've read is "Evangelical scholars", then you have not done your due diligence! Try reading some Orthodox scholars once in a while, especially with regard to the early Church's liturgical life and praxis. And read the primary sources yourself, too, with prayer and fasting. Start with the holy epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch; read and re-read them all, several times, begging God to send down His blessing upon your prayerful study of them, and then tell us if you believe St. Ignatius would give his blessing to your Evangelical tradition; and not only blessing, but if he'd lay his life down for it, in holy martyrdom!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

it is the Spirit of Apostolicity that must be kept and not all the particular Apostolic practices.

In Christ,
Bratislav
Milwaukee,WI

I hadn't really thought about it in this way before but this does point very well to what we are trying to express.

Certainly as Apostolic Christianity spread among the Gentiles there was a universal aspect to the Faith as it was practiced. The Book of Acts goes into detail as to how this was determined.

But we can see also that the Apostles themselves had a variety of practices- some of whom were Jews for example still keeping certain practices from the Law while others did not.

The evidence clearly shows that there was a great variety in the liturgical and pious traditions of the earliest Christians who came immediately after the Apostles. Even though most of the important churches claimed Apostolic origin like Sts Peter & Paul for Rome, St Mark for Alexandria, James for Jerusalem, etc the great variety of liturgical practices of these churches was not seen as proof that they were no longer being faithful to the Apostolic witness.

The assumption that the Apostolic and post-Apostolic church was one thing from Britain in the west to Persia in the east is wrong. So it may well be asked whether the apparent church Orthodoxy does not now represent ever in fact existed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Regarding bishops and monasticism: I have one simple question. Are ryassophore monks required to fast from meat products? If the answer is 'yes,' then I can assure you that I know at least one bishop that was not a monk of any sort until several years after his consecration as bishop. When he became a monk--and he was tonsured into the small schema--he began refraining from meat products at all times.

There seems to be different practical applications between the 'Slavic' churches and the 'Greek' churches. A Greek Orthodox monk once told me that, in fact, a bishop did not have to be a monk to be a bishop. Russian Orthodox have always told me that they do have to be a monk, even if they are tonsured right before their ordination. It seems that a literal reading of the canons would not require a bishop to be a monk although, in practice, the 'Slavic' churches require this.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Regarding bishops and monasticism: I have one simple question. Are ryassophore monks required to fast from meat products? If the answer is 'yes,' then I can assure you that I know at least one bishop that was not a monk of any sort until several years after his consecration as bishop. When he became a monk--and he was tonsured into the small schema--he began refraining from meat products at all times.

There seems to be different practical applications between the 'Slavic' churches and the 'Greek' churches. A Greek Orthodox monk once told me that, in fact, a bishop did not have to be a monk to be a bishop. Russian Orthodox have always told me that they do have to be a monk, even if they are tonsured right before their ordination. It seems that a literal reading of the canons would not require a bishop to be a monk although, in practice, the 'Slavic' churches require this.

Aaron

Yes- ryassaphores are supposed to fast from meat. All monastics and in fact even a novice is required to live by the full monastic rule- at least while living in the monastery.

The reason one can see bishops eating meat at times is that sometimes they choose not to live by the full monastic rule even though they are monastics. The newer bishops are for the most part now returning to the full monastic rule.

It should be said that monastics in parishes often also do not live by the full monastic rule even though they are monastics.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

As already pointed out, your view of Tradition is incomplete. First and most importantly, Holy Tradition is a living force; it is the very life and mind of the Church herself, faithfully expressed and embodied in the one life and mind of all her Fathers and saints. It is that which is mystically transmitted through her, by participation in her liturgical and sacramental life, and by fellowship with the saints. St. Paul calls it the life of the resurrection and the power of godliness.

Shawn, since it is the ordinary or normal way of an Evangelical to demand a scripture text for all things, I have taken the liberty to post several below which lay down the Scriptural basis for the mystery of holy orders and the dogma of apostolic succession. Those who have not received "laying on of hands" from a canonical bishop, descending in an orderly succession from the apostles themselves, have not been properly sent by God. I believe this is the essential teaching expressed in the Scripture texts listed below.

2 Tim. 1:6-7 "I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

1 Tim.4:14 "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

2 Thes. 2:15 "Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

2 Tim. 1:13-14 "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."

2 Tim. 2:2 "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

1 Tim. 5:22 "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

Heb. 6:2 "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands."

Acts 8:14-18 "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money."

Acts 6:1-6 "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

Acts 13:1-3 "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."

John 17:17-21 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

John 7:16-18 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."

John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

John 13:16 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

John 20:21 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."

Matt. 10:40 "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

Lk. 10:16 "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

John 13:20 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

1 Cor. 4:15-17 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church."

2 Cor. 8:16-23 "But thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you. And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, upon the great confidence which I have in you. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ."

Lk. 20:9-15 "Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him."

[Olympiada]

First of all I have seen abbots eat meat with my very own eyes, so I don't know what you are talking about "monks don't eat meat". Second of all, what is a bishop do if he felt the urge to multiply, or marry, for we all know what marriage is for, right? Is not the urge to multiply the urge to marry? How does a bishop manage the urge to multiply? Is this removed from him or is this something bishops have to struggle with their whole episcopate? Do these urges ever go away like with age or do they plague a bishop his whole episcopate?

See I am of the belief that bishops should be married, personally, if they feel that urge. I think it is too much to ask a bishop to struggle against that urge if he feels it so strongly.

Olympiada

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Theophilus,

Thanks for those verses! It helps me to be more like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:10-11. Actually, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't believe in holy orders, because I certainly do (I think everyone except the Brethen and the Quakers do). I would even agree with apostolic succession in principle, though it would seem to me the succession is apostolic if you are teaching apostolic doctrine, and not necessary if you can trace the lineage back through the history of the church. (This raises some separate, but related issues, such as (i) What about the many other communions who also claims apostolic succesion in the historical sense, such as the Anglicans, Copts, Armenians, Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, and Methodist churches? (ii) Were the bishops and metropolitans who were apointed by the muslim Caliphs in apostolic succession? (iii) And what about all the Eastern European bishops who were appointed by the KGB, and other communist governments... I understand this is an ongoing debate between the official and catacomb Russian churches).

The doubts that were raised in my heart really involved the manner of deciding who could be a bishop and why. With the unanimous testimony of the early church and Scripture being that bishops can be married; and the testimony of the later church being that they cannot, I feel torn, especially as you bring up those verses which so clearly say that we should hold to the apostles' tradition. This would seem like a good test case, becasue the bishops are the ones who are meant to safeguard the truth.

On the other hand, if tradition is living in the sense of being able to undergo change, then I understand... only that raises a whole new set of problems, because that is what the Pope and the magesterium of the Catholic church have been claiming all these years.

In Christ,
Shawn

[Ken McRae]

Actually, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't believe in holy orders, because I certainly do (I think everyone except the Brethen and the Quakers do). I would even agree with apostolic succession in principle, though it would seem to me the succession is apostolic if you are teaching apostolic doctrine, and not necessary if you can trace the lineage back through the history of the church.

"The succession is apostolic" if the "orders" were received from a canonical bishop, who stands in an unbroken episcopal succession descending directly from the apostles themselves. Without this, there is no true succession. That rules out the vast, vast majority of Protestants, who reject the doctrine of apostolic succession, as taught in this manner by all the ancient Sees.

Obviously apostolic doctrine is the other half. Assuming a priest has received holy orders, or "the laying on of hands" in the proper way, but has departed from teaching sound doctrine, then he has lost apostolic succession. Sound doctrine, though, in the absence of a lawful and proper ordination, does not qualify as 'apostolic succession'! Nor does receiving "the laying on of hands" from a group of ex-episcopalians, or "tongue-speaking" Charismatics, qualify either, from a sound Biblical standpoint!

I suspect there must be thousands of self-proclaimed prophets in America alone, who one day just decided they were called of God and sent by Him into His Vineyard to preach the Gospel and save souls. And then just went out and gathered a bunch of blind seekers around them, rented themselves a building, and called it "Joe Blow's" Charismatic Inner-City Outreach Centre. Such is the work of satan, imo, and the fruit of Sola Scriptura!

[Ken McRae]

... and called it Joe Blow's Charismatic Inner-City Outreach Centre. Such is the work of satan, imo, and the fruit of Sola Scriptura!

Perhaps I should make a tiny clarification here! Just because Joe Blow's Inner-City Outreach Centre is in the business of trying to clean up city streets, and save the youth from lives of crime, or an early death, that does'nt give them apostolic succession either! I just wanted to emphasize that, whatever else it might give them or make them!

[M.C. Steenberg]

First of all I have seen abbots eat meat with my very own eyes, so I don't know what you are talking about "monks don't eat meat".

Exceptions only prove the rule!


Second of all, what is a bishop do if he felt the urge to multiply, or marry

He redoubles his ascesis.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Shawn, you wrote:


The conflicting witnesses in the tradition, the changes from the 6th century onwards, the many rules, regulations, and canons that are proposed, amended, changed, and re-applied... all of these, suggest to me that the current practice of ordaining bishops has little or nothing to do with Scripture and the practice of the early church, and everything do to with the cultural context, mores, and church politics of the Orthodox church as it has developed through the centuries. Whereas Matthew does not believe very much in Orthodox ecclesiology would not stand the test of comparing it to first century practice, somehow I do not have the same qualms about my own tradition.

I think that at its ultimate level, this depends on what you mean by the comparison. Did the apostles wear mitres? Clearly not. Were they monks, as we understand that life? Obviously, no. But does this mean that the life of the episcopacy today doesn't compare to that of the apostolic testimony?

What is it that rests at the heart of that testimony? What is it that stands at the centre of the episcopal witness today?

I think perhaps it is in dwelling on these questions that we can see the unchanging continuity, which lives within the development of practice and exercise, which are always connected to the changing needs of a changing human race.

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

Exceptions only prove the rule!

He redoubles his ascesis.

Dear Matthew,

What like fast until he loses weight? Seriously, why would a man who has such a strong urge to multiply get tonsured in the first place? It doesn't make sense to me. Why not just go with your nature and marry? I suppose if a man has ambitions for the throne he must toss aside that option, yes?

I suppose it is none of my business, really, but everybody seems to be discussing married bishops these days so I thought I'd put in my two cents worth.

Olympiada

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Olympiada, you've set up a bit of a straw man argument here. Bishops are selected (generally, though not always; see above) from the monastics, who have chosen a celibate way of life.

INXC, Matthew

[Ken McRae]

Just because Joe Blow's Inner-City Outreach Centre is in the business of trying to clean up city streets, and save the youth from lives of crime, or an early death, that does'nt give them apostolic succession either!

Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells (http://www.stspress.com/detail.aspx?ID=62) By Matthew Gallatin. Softcover. 189 pp. $15.00

After devoting 20 years to evangelical street ministry during the "Jesus Movement", Matthew Gallatin finally accepted a painful reality: "No matter how hard he tried, he was never able to experience the God whom he longed to know." In this book he shares the many struggles that a Protestant may face when they approach Orthodoxy. Not only will this book provide Protestant readers with a good understanding of the Church, it will give Orthodox readers a deeper appreciation of their faith.