Part VI of the Western Series
How Western Beliefs Changed the Original Gospel Message
… Love, Faith, Works and Destiny …
with the blessing of her spiritual father
As taught by Christ, the Apostles and the early Church Fathers, Salvation and Deification require the salvific synergy of faith, good works and God’s grace. Love and humility are also necessary, as this is the frequency in which God works (St. Paisios, 20th century). We also need to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). The Orthodox understanding of this type of worship means with a sincere heart, with honour and gratitude, not by merely following outward rituals or traditions, but grounded in the truth of God’s word. No human being except the Godman, Jesus Christ, has the perfection of these virtues, but it is not their perfection that leads us to salvation; it is the sincere struggle for their acquisition. Because of our fallen nature, this struggle needs divine grace and assistance to succeed; and according to Orthodoxy, this necessary helping hand is found in all its fullness in the Orthodox Church. For this reason, the Church is also called:
The Ark of Salvation

With Christ at the helm, and His mother, the Theotokos as our Protectress, this Ark stays the course towards the Heavenly Kingdom. Like Noah’s Ark, the Orthodox Church (Greek: Εκκλησία, Ecclesia) gives refuge to anyone who wishes to enter. When the rains come and the floods rise, she may be buffeted by the winds of change and attacked from all sides by the antichrists of the ages, but she, herself, does not change, except to grow, because she is guided by the Holy Spirit of Truth, which leads her into the fullness of truth, preserving the unity of the faith and guarding her against heretical innovations. This Ark will arrive at its destination, intact, upright, and in all glory. As the carrier of the fullness of Truth, the Ark of Salvation is the most sure-footed path to union with God. However, the Orthodox Church is neither a guarantor for salvation, nor a judge of who will be saved. She is a hospital, which nurses, heals and nourishes the soul. Our spiritual healing that leads us to our ultimate destination also depends on us as individuals, according to how we use our gift of freedom.
If Orthodoxy has the fullness of truth, then what is truth? When Pilate asked this of Christ (John 18:38), he was expecting to hear some new ideology or abstract idea. We, too, think that truth is a ‘what.’ Most people don’t realize that Truth is a Person, a ‘Who.’ Jesus taught openly, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father [and therefore His Kingdom] except through me” (John 14:6). Jesus Christ is also “the Word [of God that] became flesh” (John 1:14). Therefore, “if [we] abide in [His] word …[we] shall know the truth, and the truth [Jesus] shall make [us] free [from sin, death and the devil]” (John 8:31-32). His word is true because He is Truth. How does this Truth, Jesus, free us from sin, death and the devil? It is by His teachings and His sacrifice that we are freed, but our freedom also depends on how we respond to and participate in His great plan for us, which in turn depends on our desire for and understanding of His Truth.
To have the fullness of Truth means to have the fullness of Christ. It’s like having a full cup of water with which to quench our thirst, rather than just one drop; or a full loaf of bread with which to satisfy our hunger instead of just one crumb. It is much better to have the whole truth that God revealed to Man* rather than just a part of it.
Love and Works
The Truth of God, who is Jesus Christ, explained that Love is a Work. He told us that the “…first of all the commandments is … you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength…’ And the second, like it, is … ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:29-31). Therefore, one criterion Jesus will use to judge the nations at the final judgment, will be based on this commandment to love.
When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life [emphasis mine]. (Matthew 25:31-46)
In Orthodoxy, God’s Love is one of His uncreated energies. Energy implies action or movement. Therefore, love is not simply an emotion, a noun, but an action, a verb, which is a deed or a work. It requires work to do good deeds of love: to feed, to water, to clothe, to visit, and otherwise help the needy. Doing something requires work. God, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, worked hard for us. He did the work of love for us when He prayed, when He fasted, when He walked to various towns and climbed hills and mountains, when He wrought miracles, and every other way He suffered in the spirit and in the flesh until He died on the Cross for us. This was hard and thankless work. If we are to become godlike, we need to do works of love for Him, and for others, even unto death, if that is what is required of us.
But Jesus did not say that only those who die for Him will be saved. He said that those who love Him by loving others will be glorified; and He could not be more clear that a strong criterion for our salvation at the final judgment will be the work of love. He was also most clear that everyone, even “the least of these,” the most down-and-out “dregs” of society, are icons of Christ, for they, too, are made in His image, according to His likeness. “…inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” God does not need anything from us, but others do. For our benefit, we need to do works of love for them, in the same way as we would do them for Christ. In short, good works are the fruit of love and they are necessary for our salvation.
Faith and Works
Good works are the fruit of love, but also the fruit of faith. The Western Reformers – Martin Luther, John Calvin and others – rejected the Eastern Church’s teaching that both faith and good works are needed. They declared that Man is saved by faith alone (sola fide), but nowhere does the New Testament (NT) say that we are saved by faith alone. We are saved by faith, but not faith alone.1 The Western Reformers also asserted that faith is an irresistible gift from God for those who are predestined for His Heavenly Kingdom. In Orthodoxy, faith, which arises in the human heart, is nurtured and made possible by God’s grace. It is both a gift and a human response. This gift of faith is not imposed by God but offered to everyone. His gift of faith needs our free will and cooperation to want it, to accept it and to help it grow. ^ Orthodoxy teaches that man is saved by faith and by the Grace of God, but the necessary fruit of faith (and love) is good works. In other words, faith and good works go hand in hand.2 This is supported by many Biblical verses in Holy Scripture:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also, faith by itself, if it does not have works [of love], is dead [emphasis mine] (James 2:14-17).
That good works are the necessary fruits of faith, is also emphasized in these verses:
You shall know them by their fruits [works, emphasis mine]. (Matthew 7:16)
This means that a person’s works is an indicator of their faith.
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar [emphasis mine]? (James 2:21)
Abraham’s deed (work) of sacrificing his son was the fruit (and proof) of his faith (trust) in God, and God did not let him down.
For by grace you have been saved through [because of] faith. And this [your faith and your salvation] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God [see ^], not a result of [your] works, so that no one may boast [emphasis mine]. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
The Calvinists defend their position by stopping here, but continuing, we read the following:
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which [workmanship – us] God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them [in good works, emphasis mine]. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
According to the Orthodox understanding, salvation is made possible by the unity of grace, faith and good works. The elements that comprise this triad are not equal. God’s grace is uncreated and infinite, whereas our faith is limited but can grow. Good works flow out of an authentic faith. They cannot earn us salvation, which is a pure gift from God, but they are the proof of our faith and love. Faith alone, without good works “is dead,” and good works alone also fall short because no matter how many good works we do, they cannot save us without God’s grace. This is because regardless of our good works, we still sin, and we still need redemption from these sins, our evil works. This Redemption comes from God’s forgiving grace. The Holy Fathers say that if only good works were needed for our salvation, Christ did not need to come down from Heaven and redeem us, since we could just redeem ourselves through our own good works.Good works are a necessary expression of faith, but we still need God’s grace for our salvation, so that our good works do not become a cause for us to boast. If only good works were needed for our salvation, they could easily lead us to the deadly sin of pride and no salvation.
In addition, there are different types of works: good works that stem from faith, love and humility and works of the law. The following passage was written by the Apostle Paul to defend the Church in Galatia against the Judaizers, who sought to impose Old Testament (OT) laws upon the Gentile Christians:
… a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified [emphasis mine]. (Galatians 2:16)
Here, works of the law refers to a legalistic salvation by adhering to specific observances of the Mosaic code of the OT, particularly the circumcision and dietary laws. Even perfect adherence to all the OT Mosaic laws does not save us from sin, death and the devil. Hence, these laws cannot “justify” or save us. The OT Patriarchs, such as Abraham, who believing in God, walked in faith, and whose faith was “credited to [them] as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4, Galatians 3, James 2:23) still died and went to Hades where they awaited the fulfilment of God’s promises – Christ’s first coming at His Incarnation and His second coming at the Last Judgement and the Resurrection of the Dead.
“These [OT saints] all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them …” (Hebrews 11:13)
God’s purpose behind the law of circumcision was a prophetic call to “circumcise the foreskin of the heart” (Jeremiah 4:4, Deuteronomy 10:16, Leviticus 26:41, Colossians 2:11) through repentance. It was also a physical sign of the covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants, a mark of belonging to God’s people. A piece of flesh was removed to symbolize a commitment to God rather than to the sinful desires of the flesh. The Law of Circumcision was part of God’s Oral Covenant with Abraham, which was His Second Covenant. His First Covenant was with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: had they chosen to perfect themselves in humility and love, expressed as obedience to God, they would have eternally lived with Him in peace, harmony and happiness, bypassing sin, death and the devil. The Third Covenant was God’s Written Covenant with Israel, The Ten Commandments, given to the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai, on the day that marked the Jewish Pentecost. Israel, God’s chosen people, was the only nation that worshipped the One, True God. If they persevered in this faith without capitulating to the lusts of idolatry and the flesh, God would in turn preserve them in the new, fertile land He promised them, with many descendants, peace from their enemies, freedom and prosperity. However, even perfect adherence to the works of the Law (circumcision, The Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Laws) did not restore Man to his original state in Eden by addressing or solving the problems of sin, death and the devil. That is, not until God’s Fourth and Final Covenant, The Blood Covenant, which He made not only with the Jews, but also with the rest of Humanity, * through Jesus Christ.
Only The Blood Covenant destroyed the power of sin, death and the devil, justifying Mankind* through the salvific synergy of God’s forgiving grace, coupled with our faith that brings forth good works of love and humility. After Christ’s First Coming, all previous Covenants which are prophetic “types” became obsolete. The Apostle Paul explains to the Judaizers and to the Gentile Christians, that it made no sense to return to the works of the law, which stemmed from an obsolete Covenant:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming … when I will make a new covenant … not according to the covenant I made with their fathers … after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts [instead of stone tablets]; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people … I will be merciful [forgiving] to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more [having forgiven them].”
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete… [emphasis mine] (Hebrews 8:7-13)
Because we still sin, only the forgiving grace of God can save us when we have a faith that also bears fruit by way of good works of love and humility.
In Orthodoxy, “justification” is not a once-and-for-all legal act, like the Protestant belief that once saved, always saved. It is part of the ongoing journey of sanctification (purification) towards Theosis. This journey is not a static, juridical event, but a dynamic process, where sanctification (purification), justification (righteousness) and Salvation/Theosis are inseparable. (see Part IV – Are You Saved?)
Faith alone (sola fide), is again dealt with by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, where he explains how our works will be tested by fire:
…. No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man build [a work] upon this foundation [of Christ] with gold, silver, precious, stones, wood, hay, straw; each one’s work shall become clear: for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire [emphasis mine] (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)
What is the interpretation of these words of the Apostle? Note that the word work is in the singular, denoting a lifetime of work to build on the foundation, which is Christ. Most Christians will agree that the gold, silver and precious stones, represent good work; the wood, hay and straw represent evil work; and fire represents the divine fire of God, which can also be hell fire (see Part XI).
Beyond this, there is divergence in interpretation. Many Protestants who believe in “faith alone” (sola fide) interpret the last part of this verse to mean that if anyone’s evil work is burned up, he will suffer the loss of the work, but he himself “shall be saved” from the fire of hell. This interpretation ignores the phrase that follows, “yet so as through fire.” Other sects interpret this to mean, “barely saved from the fire of hell,” but if one is “barely” saved, this means that good works count for something, and sole fide does not suffice. The Roman Catholics interpret the phrase “yet so as through fire” to mean “purgatory,” but the idea of purgatory did not emerge in the West until the 12th century and did not exist at the time St. Paul was writing to the Corinthians. Below is the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom (4th century), an important early Church Father:
The building [verb]… is about actions [works] … if faith had been the subject of these sayings, the thing affirmed is not reasonable. For in the faith all ought to be equal, since “there is but one faith” (Ephes. iv. 5) but in goodness of life it is not possible that all should be the same. Because the faith is … the same in all those who truly believe. But in life there is room for some to be more diligent, others more slothful … that some should have done well in greater things, others in less; that the errors of some should have been more grievous, of others less notable. On this account he saith, “Gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble – every man’s work shall be made manifest” – his conduct [works]; that is what he speaks of here – “If any man’s work abide which he built thereupon, he shall receive a reward; if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss.” … And … he saith, “Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor” not according to the result, but according to “the labor [the effort of the work]” …
…If any man has an ill life with a right faith, his faith shall not shelter him from punishment, his work being burnt up. The phrase, “shall be burned up,” means, “shall not endure the violence of the fire.” But just as if a man having golden armor on were to pass through a river of fire, he comes from crossing it all the brighter; but if he were to pass through it with hay, so far from profiting, he destroys himself, besides; so also, is the case in regard of men’s works. For he does not say this as if he were [speaking] of material things being burnt up, but with a view … of showing how naked of all defence he is who abides in wickedness [evil works]. Wherefore he said, “He shall suffer loss:” … here is one punishment: “but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire;” … here is a second [punishment]. And his meaning is, “He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought [annihilation], but he shall abide in the fire [of hell].
“He calleth it, however, “Salvation,” [which] is the cause of his adding, “so as by fire:” since we also used to say, “it is preserved in the fire,” when we speak of those substances which do not immediately burn up and become ashes. … [therefore], do not … imagine that those who are burning pass into annihilation. And though he calls such punishment “Salvation”, be not astonished… [emphasis mine]. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily IX, 1 Cor. iii. 12–15)
In other words, when the evil work is annihilated by the fire, the doer of this work is saved from the same annihilation that will burn up his works, but he will not be saved from the fire itself. Being saved from annihilation, he remains in the fire of hell. Whether one interprets the phrase “yet so as through fire,” to mean “barely saved” from hell fire, or “remaining in hell fire” the same conclusion is drawn – “sola fide” without good works is spiritually dangerous because good works are necessary for one’s salvation.
The Holy Fathers of the East have a simple, yet excellent way of explaining the necessity of both faith and good works: Just having faith, meaning a belief in God, does not suffice because the devil also believes that God exists – and does not love or obey Him. In fact, his relationship with everyone is terrible because he also hates Mankind* and works hard to destroy him. His hatred of God and all others produces only evil works, and his outcome will be eternal perdition.
What about good works done without faith? Orthodoxy teaches that this approach lacks the fullness of the spiritual life in Christ. The Orthodox Church entrusts such cases to the mercy of God, for He alone searches the heart and knows the mysteries of each soul. Still, there are faithless people who do not love God or confess Jesus as God, but do good works for philosophical reasons, for self-esteem, social approval, personal advancement, or to make up for a sinful lifestyle or other bad deeds as a “backup plan” in case God does exist. Doing good works as a backup plan wrongly assumes that one will be judged solely based on one’s works. As was discussed in Part IV, this presupposition is based on the Western understanding of divine justice as a juridical set of scales. According to the “scales,” provided one does more good deeds than bad deeds, one is “safe.” However, good works do not erase sins, which need to be forgiven by God’s grace through the Sacrament of Repentance and Holy Confession. Again, according to the Holy Fathers, if good works was all that was needed for our salvation, Christ did not need to come down from heaven to save us. We could all just do good works and save ourselves.
Then there are those who demonstrate faith and good works, even to the point of prophesying and doing miracles of healing, but instead of being motivated by genuine love for God or their fellow man, they are motivated by mammon, pride or personal ambition, or they live hidden lives of immorality. Some may even preach a different gospel, altering or falsifying the teachings of Christ, who warned:
Beware of false prophets [heretics], who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves … by their fruits you will know them … Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)
For the sake of the faithful, God’s grace is at work even in the unworthy, like Judas Iscariot, who did miracles of healing in Jesus’ name when the Apostles were sent out two by two (Mark 6:7-13, Luke 10:1). All the while, however, he was a thief (John 12:6) and in the end he became the son of perdition because he betrayed the love of God for the love of money (John 17:12). The same end will be met by false prophets and other imposters who deceive the faithful by doing many wonders in the name of Jesus, but do not personally follow or teach the real Jesus.
Faith and Love
Just as faith by itself, without good works is dead (fruitless), in like manner, faith without love is also dead (fruitless).
…if I have a faith that I can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Cor. 13:1)
and
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ [with the lip service of love] shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does [committedly, continuously, not just once] the will [works] of My Father in heaven [emphasis mine]. (Matthew 7:21-23)
If God is True Love, how can we approach Him without works of love? Works of love are “walking the talk,” which shows that our feelings are sincere. If we want sincere relationships, why wouldn’t God want the same? Christ complained, saying,
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. (Matthew 15:8)
Again, it is no wonder that the first and greatest commandment is to…
…love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind…And…your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-39)
In these verses, love does not mean mere sentiment; it means an action, a work – a sacrificial act – and the Lord who loves us, also expects us to work at loving Him in return, both in a direct relationship with Him, by living a Liturgical and Sacramental life, and indirectly, by loving others at least as much as we love ourselves, because they, too, are in the “image” of God. This is not because God needs our love. We need to love Him because doing so keeps our spiritual eyes, our focus, on Him. The more we focus on Him and the good of others, the less we look inward, injuring ourselves with self-centred sins, and the more we progress towards Theosis.
Because love can be a hard virtue to cultivate, Saint Nicolai Velimirovic, often called the “new John Chrysostom,” offers this practical advice:
Faith is the foundation of love. Constantly keep the faith and constantly keep the seed of love which faith carries within itself, so that it may germinate and bring you joy. Because faith by itself, without love, is cold and joyless.
But if love grows cold in you, not bearing the fruit of joy, simply keep the faith and wait.
Keep the faith at all costs. And wait, even for years, until love sprouts from your faith. If you lose love, you lose much, but if you lose faith, you lose everything. If you lose love, you lose the fruit from the tree; if you lose faith, you kill the tree itself.
If a bad year of harvest comes and the field does not produce a good crop, the owner patiently cultivates [works] it with double diligence. The neighbours may say, “Just sell the field.” Yet the cultivator remains quiet and works. If the field does not produce the next year, the cultivator increases his diligence with triple effort. The neighbours may shout this time, “Sell it for God’s sake.” Yet the farmer remains silent and labors. And when in the third year the field brings forth a good crop, the joy of the cultivator is threefold. Then the neighbours must remain silent, while the farmer rejoices. If he sold the field in the first year, what would he have rejoiced over? Keep the faith [emphasis mine]! 3 (Saint Nikolai Verimirovic 1880-1956)
Scroll Down to Continue
Total Depravity & Predestination
In Orthodoxy, good works are needed for our salvation because they are the fruit of faith and love. Faith alone (sola fide), was the belief of the Western Protestant Reformers, such as John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), who were influenced by Augustine’s earlier idea of the total depravity of Man. This theory means that after the fall, all humans came under “a harsh necessity of committing sin.” Because they have no free will and are only capable of sin, their actions, or works, have nothing to do with their salvation. Mankind became too depraved to be capable of anything good. Therefore, faith had to be a gift from God for select individuals, who were “chosen” by God for salvation, so that not all of Humanity* would be eternally lost. This idea is known as double predestination, where everyone is predestined by God before birth, to have faith or not, and to enter either Heaven or eternal Hell.4, 5
Orthodoxy maintains that Man is not under a harsh necessity of committing sin but has a tendency to sin. Contrary to Luther, Calvin and other Reformers, Man also has the willpower and the initiative to be saved by participating in his own salvation. In his book, Surprised by Christ, My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity, the late Rev. A. James Bernstein, a convert from Judaism to Orthodoxy, explains how the metaphor of the damaged eye helped him understand the difference between the Eastern and Western views:
The total depravity model views the Fall as having destroyed man’s spiritual eye so that he is no longer capable of having any spiritual sight whatsoever. His only hope is to be given a completely new eye from God. God unilaterally decides who is given a new eye and who is not. This is called double predestination, as God alone decides who will be given faith and go to heaven, and who will not be given faith and will go to hell…In the Orthodox view, the Fall damages the spiritual eye but does not destroy it. We are not totally blind, because having been created in the image and likeness of God, we still retain free will and some degree of desire for God. Faith remains within us, though it may be the size of a mustard seed. Having faith is not an all-or-nothing issue. Just as differing levels of fallenness exist, so do varying degrees of faith. (Rev. A. James Bernstein)5
In his most famous book, The Orthodox Church, the late Bishop Timothy Kallistos Ware (1934-2022), an Anglican convert to Orthodoxy, writes:
[The Orthodox Church] cannot agree…that humans are under ‘a harsh necessity’ of ‘committing sin’, and [that] ‘human nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell and so came to lack freedom.’ The image of God is distorted by sin but never destroyed; in the words of a hymn sung by the Orthodox at the Funeral Service: ‘I am the image of your inexpressible glory, even though I bear the wounds of sin.’ And because we still retain the image of God, we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Even after the Fall, God takes not away from man the power to will – to will to obey or not to obey Him [emphasis mine]. (Bishop Timothy Kallistos Ware)5
Likewise, in the words of St. John of Kronstadt,
Never confuse the person formed in the image of God, with the evil that is in him; because evil is but a chance misfortune, an illness, a devilish reverie. But the very essence of the person is the image of God, and this remains in him despite every disfigurement [from sin]. (St. John of Kronstadt,19th century Russia)
In Orthodoxy, Christ died for everyone because He wants all to be saved, not a select few. This means that two energies are needed for man’s salvation: God’s grace and Man’s free will. After the image of God in Man – the soul – was wounded by the Fall, the gift of the Holy Spirit (forgiving grace) fused with Man’s free will (the initiative to cultivate his gift of faith), enable him to do good works (such as following God’s commandments) and be saved. In Orthodoxy, participation in the Holy Mysteries – Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession and especially the Eucharist – is essential for abiding in Christ and receiving the grace necessary for the spiritual healing of our wounded souls and our transformation to godlikeness (Theosis).
Grace
According to Orthodox teaching, predestination is incompatible with Holy Scripture and the salvific role of Jesus, who “leave[s] the 99 sheep in the wilderness, and go[es] after the one which is lost until he finds it” (Luke 15:4). The Orthodox Church also rejects the total depravity theory. One Eastern Father, St. Irenaeus, understands Humanity as having fallen from a state of undeveloped capability, his original state being like one of spiritual childhood, innocence, and simplicity joined to moral purity. Man was to gain God’s likeness through a gradual process. He does not view Man’s fall as a full-blown rebellion, but more like an impulsive desire to grow before his time. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve’s strength of free will was such that they had all the means to resist temptation if they wanted to, for the image of God in them had not yet been marred as it is in us. After the Fall, the human mind or “nous” was not destroyed but darkened, the human will power was not lost but weakened, and the conscience was not annihilated but dulled, so that humans could no longer hope to achieve God’s likeness on their own, without God’s grace.5
Before the Fall, man’s conscience was pure and clear, easily discerning good and evil. After sin, it became mixed with the darkness of the passions, so that one’s own will and self-love now speak louder than God’s law. Yet through repentance and the grace of Christ, it is illumined again [emphasis mine]. (St. Theophan the Recluse – The Path to Salvation, Part I, ch.3)
After the Fall, Humanity still had some good potential. God’s “image” in Humanity was distorted but not destroyed. Man was still in the “image” of God but not according to His “likeness” as before. There is still hope for this, however, through Jesus Christ, for God is Love. He created man in His goodness and has never left him, nor will He ever leave him without His love. God’s grace is always available to Man if Man asks for it. As the “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18), the Godman, Jesus, completed the reopening of Humanity’s path to Theosis (God’s “likeness”) with His Incarnation, His Death on the Cross, His Resurrection, and finally, His Ascension. This brought Him to the right hand of the Father in Heaven, as not only God, but also as the first truly Human being, having fulfilled Man’s true destiny in the place of Adam.
We all have enough freedom to take an interest in God, to follow God, to obey God, to love God, to heed God’s voice in their conscience – or not. Even in a fallen world where circumstances may limit personal freedom, there is never a “no choice” situation concerning God. God can, but will not, frighten anyone into submission and obedience to Him because that would be coercion. It would not be the way of Love and Freedom. God profoundly respects the complete freedom He has given Man, to accept or reject Him, and He never interferes with it, even though it nailed Him to the Cross, or brings some of us to Hell. Orthodoxy is faithful to the idea of synergy between Man and God and rejects any interpretation of the Fall that allows no room for human freedom.
In the Orthodox Church, when Man freely chooses to seek out God and follow Him by loving God and neighbour with faith and good works of love and humility, worshiping God in spirit and in truth through a sacramental and liturgical life, then God’s grace forgives and sanctifies the individual, healing him and progressing him from God’s image to God’s likeness in Theosis.
The Church’s role, however, is not to guarantee salvation, nor to judge who will be saved. Because “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), the Church is a spiritual hospital that nurses and heals the soul. Even the most pious still need God’s forgiving grace, which is free for the asking. “You do not have because you do not ask” (James:2), and with this in mind, the holy Elders, and even many lay people, continually ask, “Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner,” (the Jesus Prayer).** The continuous work of this hesychast** prayer, which is an expression of faith and humility, combined with the most profound work of love – the genuine forgiveness of one’s enemy – generates the frequency of love and humility, in which God works. This is why in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus taught us to pray, “… and forgive us our trespasses as we also forgive those who trespass against us [emphasis mine].” All these things that the Orthodox believer does in perpetual hope for his salvation, are works that Christ has revealed to us by His own example, so that even if we incline towards Him through these works with faith and love, He will bestow His salvific grace upon us.
Recall the thief on the cross who asked Christ to remember him in His kingdom. He had led an evil life. Yet, towards the end, he finally heard Jesus knocking and opened the door of his heart. He did not tempt Jesus to save them all from the cross, like the other, unrepentant thief. He asked Jesus to save him from his sins by remembering him in His Kingdom. This thief repented and confessed the sins of his past life, while accepting his own crucifixion as a just sentence. He also publicly acknowledged Jesus as God. His faith, humility, true repentance and public confession in his final moments, may have been the only good works he ever did, but according to the Orthodox Church, he was the first to enter Paradise.
Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our [evil] deeds [works]; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39-43)
This is the gift of grace, which is free for the asking. No one can be saved without it.
Contextual vs Selective Theology
So far, we have seen how a disconnect from Holy Tradition risks the introduction of human rationalism, and the dangerous interpretation of Scriptural texts in isolation from, rather than in context with, the whole of Holy Scripture. These disconnects lead to a type of “selective theology,” which in turn lead to misinterpretations, misunderstandings, contradictions and “a different gospel” from the one given to us by the Lord.
Our adherence to Holy Tradition protects us from “a different gospel – which is no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6-9). Holy Tradition, which is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, expediates the salvific synergy of God’s grace with our faith, good works, love, and humility, as taught by Christ, the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. Together with the Church, the Holy Spirit leads us into the fullness of grace and truth, which is Christ, preserving the unity of the faith and guarding our spiritual growth against the heretical teachings of “different gospels.” 2, 6, 7
To be continued with Part VII – Papal Apostasy, Power, Wealth and Schism…
Footnotes
- The terms Man, Humanity, Mankind are used interchangeably and in the plural sense to mean both the masculine and the feminine together. The terms he, him, his also denote the singular feminine unless otherwise stated in the text. These terms will be used in this manner throughout all Parts of this Series.
** The Jesus Prayer, “Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner,” has gained high esteem in the Orthodox Church, as a way of cleansing and opening up, first the mind and then the heart. Those who diligently practice the Prayer first acquire the Prayer of the Mind or the Noetic Prayer and then the Prayer of the Heart. The Prayer of the Heart is the Unceasing Prayer that the Apostle Paul advocates when he says, “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17), and an important element in Orthodox spirituality. In the Orthodox Tradition, the Jesus Prayer is recited repeatedly by monastics (and lay people), while observing Hesychasm (from the Greek: Ησυχία (Hesychia), meaning “stillness or tranquility”). This practice began in the Egyptian desert, as early as the 5th century. Elements of the Jesus Prayer first appeared in Holy Scripture, including the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke18:9-14), and then in a letter written by St. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.). Hesychasm may involve specific body postures and a deliberate breathing pattern (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,” while inhaling; “have mercy on me a sinner,” while exhaling; in repetition). This pattern of breathing, while ignoring the senses, helps acquire “tranquility” of the heart and progresses the prayer from the mind to the heart, where it eventually becomes automatic and unceasing.
To be continued with Part VII – Papal Apostasy, Supremacy and Infallibility…
References
- The Orthodox Study Bible, Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World, Old & New Testaments, texts & exegesis Pg. 1591,
- Fr. Constantine Matthews Protopresbyter, Eastern Orthodoxy Compared, Her Main Teachings and Significant Differences with Roman Catholicism and the Major Protestant Denominations. Pg 79-80
- Saint Nikolai Velimirovic, Come Alive in God! Words for Christian Living, Translation, Introduction and Notes by Daniel M. Rogich, First Hesychia press Edition, August 2021, Canton, Ohio. Pg 20
- George Nicozisin, The Orthodox Church: A Well-Kept Secret, A Journey Through Church History Pg 100-110, 103-107
- A. James Bernstein, Surprised by Christ, My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity, 2008. Pg 20-221
- Matthew Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008).
- Fr Aidan Kimel, St Athanasius: The Fall of Man into the Body, Eclectic Orthodoxy, April 5, 2013, accessed July 25, 2018, https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/st-athanasius-the-fall-of-man-into-the-body/







The lead picture of this article, which is a newly designed icon from Uncut Mountain and not from established tradition.
Is it really appropriate to be depicting Athenagoras as a persector of the Church with a demon in his ear? He’s still within living memory and has never been formally condemned.
And is it approprite to make an icon that focuses on heretics? Icons are supposed to be about saints.
How did Luther directly attack the Church? This isn’t even historically correct.
Part of the reason I’m not very enthused about the massive influx of converts is that you’ll only see more things like this. I’d rather have a numerically small Orthodoxy with depth than a massive Orthodoxy that is just another suburban denomination confusing morality with ideology.
Dr. Irene isn’t a convert. She’s the daughter of a priest. But in any case, how much depth of knowledge does one actually need to be saved? Is in-depth Theology even needed for the average person, or is a heart of love for God and His creation good enough, combined with faith and humility, sufficient? People are going to annoy us. Does that mean we lock them out? As for the Icon, if it’s really an issue, post a link to a better one and we’ll use that. We aren’t selling icons. They are illustrative tools.
One other point to consider. You can’t have suburban, comfortable Orthodoxy without comfortable suburbs. 50 year mortgages and 15 year car loans are a nod to complete destruction of our currency base. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but it will all be a whole lot less comfortable. Many Americans are already struggling, and many more are already queued up to join them. Nominally Orthodox country clubs will not survive. Nominally Orthodox Christians will succumb to conformity with the world, or they will be reduced to hateful nihilism. What has been, is not what will be. You seem to always try to treat a disease that has already burned out. The question is not “getting even” with the people who have let Orthodoxy down in the past. The question is now of how to prepare the people who are genuinely seeking for a very depressing, uncertain future, in which God still loves them and wants them to be saved?
How about an icon of the martyrs Faith, Hope and Love with their mother Wisdom?
https://search.brave.com/images?q=icon+martyrs+faith+hope+and+love&source=web
My criticism wasn’t directed at the author. My fault for not being precise. It’s more of the general mindset I see all through Orthodoxy. We are ideological in a way that isn’t organic. We approach theology and ecclesiology like Republicans and Democrats.
In 50 years, the religious landscape of all denominations will be massively different. I don’t know what to predict, but the current system is not sustainable. Just to take American Orthodoxy in isolation from the rest of the American religion, we may have the truth, but this system we’ve built does not have the Spirit (John 4:24). So this will crumble. Bad fruit always falls from the tree.
It won’t be 50 years. Many of our jurisdictions will be bankrupt much sooner. There will be a wave of consolidation coming caused by severe economic dislocation. We are not ready for what comes next.
Maybe we can do the RCC thing where we sell off historic churches to pay off the diocese’s debts. An old German-Catholic church in St Louis became a skatepark before burning down. The OCA has a church on Route 66 that predates the Russian revolution and has something like zero Sunday attendees. Then went into total COVID closure. That seems to be about half the Diocese of the Midwest. I saw something several years ago that half their churches are without a priest and most of their priests are very old (but I’m quoting that off memory). FWIW I was a member of the OCA but never the DMw.
When I was a new convert, I was very cynical on Metropolitan Philip Saliba. And there’s a lot you can criticize. But several years after his death, I realized that the Antiochians are the only ones who are administratively functional and financially stable solvent. Met Philip built something good that lasts. The other jurisdictions are just cannibalizing what their parents built and, as the boomers do witheverything, leaving nothing for the next generation. But Met Philip, in his crazy genius I will never understand, made something sustainable and functional that can grow perpetually.
When you realize that the Orthodox Church is largely run by boomer WASP converts, it makes a lot more sense.
Metropolitan Saba has also been impressive.
I am not a convert, nor a daughter of a priest. My father has been heavily involved in youth and adult catechism, and has also been a public speaker for over 40 years now, with the blessing of the Archbishop of Canada and Elder Efraim of Arizona of blessed memory. I am only providing this information for clarity and not to boost my credentials in any way. My only credential is the blessing of my own spiritual father who vetted these articles before I posted them. He did not see the icon of the Ark of Salvation which I chose afterwards, and I chose it for three main reasons:
1) I wanted to provide a visual of what the Ark of Salvation might look like. My focus at the time was on who was inside the ark more so than who was outside of it, which would include not just those who directly (such as communism from without) or indirectly (such as freemasonry from within) persecute the Church but also those who are fumbling around in the water because of their decided indifference. These are not shown in the icon I chose, although they might be shown in some icons of Noah’s Flood:
https://saintpaulsicons.com/product/noah-and-the-flood-cf993/
Not all icons contain ONLY images of Saints. St. George and St. Demetrios are frequently depicted killing a man or a dragon. We also have many icons that depict demons in them, such as St. John’s ladder, the icon of the Last Judgment etc.
2) I also wanted the words on the icon to be in English so that non-Greek people can read them. I was paying more attention to this rather than who, specifically, was depicted attacking the Church. This series is meant to strengthen the faith of the Orthodox and to educate the non-Orthodox, most of whom don’t speak Greek and who still don’t know anything about us, and think we are some type of Roman Catholicism. I hope some non-Orthodox will be more curious about Orthodoxy if they read this series, and will want to learn more.
3) and finally, if I am to convey the message that the Church is a safe haven amidst the storms of change, I needed an icon that depicted some of these storms.
You mentioned confusing morality with ideology. I’m not sure the two are separate. Depending on chosen definitions, religion can be considered a type of ideology, although as an Orthodox Christian, I believe Orthodoxy is much more than an ideology. I believe it is God’s Truth. Communism is an ideology, but having murdered people (especially religious people) for not having adhered to it, is that not also immoral? Did Lenin and Stalin NOT persecute the Church? Within living memory or not, was Athenagoras NOT a freemason? Is it moral to be both a freemason and an Orthodox Bishop? It can be argued that Freemasonry and other heresies are attacks on the Church from within, whereas ideologies like Communism are attacks from without, but regardless, they are still attacks, aimed at Orthodox Christians – the Body of Christ. When someone like Luther changes the meaning of the Gospel and throws out Holy Tradition, is that NOT an attack on the Church established by Christ and his Apostles? Or is it just an attack on Roman Catholicism? Or does it not matter because RC was just another heresy, anyway? An attack does not require a physical weapon. It can be a weapon of words, even the weapon of a new IDEOLOGY.
Although the icon I chose is not old and and does not depict ONLY the Saints, it is still depicting truth. This truth may not be politically correct because Athenagoras has not yet been condemned by a synod (try conducting a synod these days without any freemasons in it), but he still stands condemned by the Conscience of the Church, because Freemasonry is NOT compatible with Orthodoxy. And everything that Luther did and did not do, WAS historical. The fact that neither he nor any of the other lead Reformers did not approach the Orthodox Church when they rejected the Papacy is also historical. One can argue that sola scriptura was just as much about being the ring leader of your own “truth” as it was about ridding yourself of the papal taxes. By the way, Luther married a consecrated nun, and that is still immoral. Perhaps his reform was spurred by a personal conflict of interest. That Protestantism has spread itself around not just to nations that never heard the gospel before, but also to Orthodox nations, converting people from Orthodoxy to Protestantism, is also historical. Is that not an attack on the Orthodox Church – proselytizing those who are already (lukewarm) Christians because they don’t know their own faith well enough? It’s predatory. The fact that Luther did not do this himself, personally, is immaterial since he is a key instigator. Predatory proselytism is not how the Great Commission of Christ is supposed to work. It is supposed to work through Catechism, which is what I hope to achieve here, with the help and Grace of God.
You don’t have to like the icon any more than I like icons with demons in them. One only needs to appreciate that it depicts the truth about internal and external attacks on the Church, the Body of Christ, through the ages, past, present and future. There have been so many diverse attacks that it’s not worth arguing about which were historical and which were formally condemned. Such arguments take away from the main message of the article, and if I dare say, constitute their own type of attack – the attack of distraction from the main theme of what is written.
Please forgive me if I offend.
Thank you for that long response.
I used to attend a church that had that very icon, and I remember a long conversation with the priest and his wife about whether it was appropriate, and we all agree that it sort of wasn’t, although the icon stayed up.
Athenagoras was very problematic, but he still hasn’t been condemned, and it’s only been a few decades. Icons are supposed to be something the whole Church can gather around, and it just feels so arrogant to make an icon against a figure who is that recent. Write all the books and expose Athenagoras as a subversive, but putting it in an icon to hang in the church, it feels like politicizing the liturgy.
While I think the image goes back some 20 years, it’s very much part of the polemics that have surrounded Peter Heers (a close associate of Elder Ephraim). I have been unable to find out if the icon company is the same as his publishing press. This kind of radical anti-ecumenism is seductive, especially to new converts, but it oversimplifies complex issues, misrepresents the tradition, and ultimately divides the Church.
You can tell that Heers doesn’t have the Spirit because everything he says is dripping with anger (I realize how that sounds coming from me). James 3 talked about heavenly wisdom and false wisdom. Heers’s rage and conceit is a tattoo on his soul, and comes out in everything he says.
We don’t convert people by building a giant gaudy church in the desert like Elder Ephraim did. His whole approach to Orthodoxy– which I realize is normal on Athos — I think is very wrong. Supposedly he wouldn’t even allow Orthodox Christians into the liturgy if they had only been recieved by chrismation. After his death his monastery declared him a saint. So this isn’t monastic obedience– it’s monastic arrogance. You don’t get to invent your own Orthodoxy as a monk.
Your spiritual father, likely with the best of intentions, has misled you into a false Orthodoxy.
And of course, as I always remind people, a mentally ill young man committed suicide while on Elder Ephraim’s watch. His blood is Elder Ephraim’s hands.
The points that you make are very relevant to the Western series and to the Orthodox mindset, and I thank you for that. Hence another lengthy response, and probably the last one, if I am to get to Part VII. Apologies if the response is too long.
I have learned that rarely does the appearance of someone or something reflect what is reallygoing on underneath. Therefore, we must be careful not to paint others orcircumstances with broad strokes, lest we mislead or be judged by the same measure.
Although we always rejoice when someone converts to the Orthodox Faith, I don’t think we realize, unless we have done it, what a difficulty journey and transition that can be. Here you are, whole heartedly embracing what you have finally found – the TRUTH – only to discover that your new parishioners, priests and hierarchs are as imperfect as your old ones. Until we graduate to the Church Triumphant, the Church Militant, will always be a hospital, consisting of imperfect, dysfunctional and broken people who are trying to find healing while following the LIGHT amidst all the church politics, all the corruption, all the human shortcomings, frustrations and disappointments of all the other broken people.
When my soul groans within me and I ask, “why so-and-so God?” the answer is always “What is it to you what the other is doing or what plans I have for them? Your job is to follow ME.” Change is not something you can force others to do. You can only invite it to happen. Heck, I can’t even force myself to change! This is what is meant by “the Kingdom of Heaven is taken by violence” – not the violence of killing people or beating them up, but the forceful subjection of one’s own will and passions to the will of God. Here is where monasticism comes in, which exclusively dedicates itself to that long and arduous struggle, one that changes and sanctifies the world by changing the self – always with God’s grace as no one can do it alone.
But even the wonder-working saints aren’t perfect, which is why Orthodox dogma is not based on any individual, but on the CONSENSUS of holy people who we call the Fathers of the Church. If others individually make the same confession of faith, of course we follow that since it agrees with the whole Church. Although we, as members of the body of Christ, need the other members, so that together we function as a complete body – the Church – we should only “hang our hats” so to speak, on the Head, which is Christ. We should not “idolize” other individuals or “pieces” of Orthodoxy, such as focusing only on monastics or the calendar, as this brings an imbalance to the Church. It compromises the economy of moderation, which can breed self-righteous arrogance, even fanaticism, which lead to schism.
Similarly, we should not criticize any part of another person’s life, for when we cover up the sins of our brother, rather than exposing them, we cover up a multitude of our own sins. Criticizing a priest is especially dangerous as we can scandalize others of weak faith who have trusted them. Saint Porphyrios was very much against that, and when it comes to owning up to that one, I am the first in line.
Although I still don’t agree, which is OK by the way, I now better understand your feelings about said icon of the Ark of Salvation in the church you used to attend. Personally, I still fail to see ecumenism in the icon. I see an eschatological message because of the many, more modern and future attackers on the Church. I thought this made the icon more relevant to our times. You might feel more comfortable if instead of Athenagoras, the icon just personified Freemasonry. I did think it was a bit bold to pick on Athenagoras when he wasn’t even the first or the only Freemason hierarch, but the sad truth is: it’s not demonic ideologies that attack the church, but individual people behind them. It is individuals who are also shown and named in icons of the last judgement. Although demonic ideologies can be very political, like communism, and Christian persecutions always have a bad political agenda attached to them, I don’t think that recognizing these truths in iconography politicizes the divine liturgy. While Christ died for us willingly, the mechanism of His death was driven by bad Jewish & Roman politics, and His crucifixion is in every church. Politics after all, can be summed up as the pursuit of secular worldly interests, to which we should all crucify ourselves. I feel these should sometimes be iconographed to remind us of the vanity of their pursuit, especially if such politics persecute or injure the Church or its members.
Rightly or wrongly, I feel (like you) very strongly about a similar icon fresco in the chapel of our archdiocese which depicts our current hierarch at the helm of the boat in the place of Christ. When I first saw this, my reaction was visceral. I sometimes fantasize (and he may be reading this) drawing more whiskers on his face and lengthening his hair to make him look more like Christ. Since we are all icons of Christ, perhaps a little well-intentioned mischievous graffiti may help him in his struggle to perfect himself. But then again, perhaps it wasn’t arrogant narcissism that led him to said art form, but a sincere desire to imitate Christ, in which case I have now sinned and need to repent, so this also constitutes a public confession of my sin. One can argue that his eminence may not be wrong commissioning said icon of himself since he is the overseer of the church in his jurisdiction, and while I’m still thinking of the counter arguments to that, I also realize that this icon should remind me to pray for him regardless of how I feel about it.
In the same chapel and amongst all the canonized saints on the wall, is the portrait of a layman holding a small model of a church, because he made a sizeable donation to the archdiocese. I was told about this; I have not seen it myself, so I do not know who it is or if there is also a halo around his head in the picture. I do hope there will be a halo around his head (and mine) in the future. This type of practice, however, seems to go back a long way. In 2014 while finishing off a Byzantine tour in Venice, I was surprised at a mosaic of an emperor and his wife gifting a church miniature to Christ and the then Patriarch. When your right hand is not supposed to know the alms that your left hand is giving, these people are on the wall for all posterity to take note. On the other hand, perhaps it fills a personal need to be remembered in prayer for their salvation, because they are cognizant of their unworthiness. May God forgive me for passing judgement as my ungenerosity and unworthiness are far greater.
As strict as we should be with ourselves, so much more charitable should we be to our brethren. Father Peter Heers is himself, a convert. I don’t know him intimately, but he has been very pastoral towards me. The few times I have watched him online I’ve never seen him angry. Sometimes he may have appeared a little nervous or agitated but not angry, and certainly not irate. He has a large following on his online catechisms, as he is very passionate about Orthodoxy, and like most of us, he struggles to do the right thing and believe in the right way. My impression is that he is trying to protect the Church from heresy, and he is very dedicated to that, which he should be, but it can be very stressful, especially for someone who loves a great deal. When an individual is very stressed, they can project anger. I know so because I am a doctor and I have done it myself. I respect Father Heers, and I don’t expect him to be perfect.
Now for Elder Ephraim and “the blood on his hands,” because of the young man who “committed suicide while on his watch.” This is a harsh accusation, my friend. I know how tragic it is and how painful it feels to lose a patient to suicide. It makes you second guess everything you ever said or did, which you put down in the medical record, and you keep reading it over and over again. It didn’t make sense that she would kill herself, while recovering from her mental illness; but according to her psychiatrist it is mid-way in recovery when the risk of suicide is greatest because in the depths of despair the individual isn’t strong enough to see it through. When they get a bit stronger, before full recovery, that is when they usually do the deed if they intend to do it. She had carefully planned her suicide as we found out later, but she still got an Orthodox funeral because of her mental illness. I was very glad for that economia on the part of our Church.
The young man’s suicide happened towards the end of Elder Ephraim’s life, and after I last saw him. When I last saw him, he was already very ill and frail from a lifetime of asceticism and had withdrawn from most of his monastic duties. He had stopped hearing confessions except in extenuating circumstances and there was always a monk who attended to him in his cell. If he left his cell to go to another part of the monastery, he was driven in a small car. He may not have known much about the unfortunate young man who appeared on the scene later. There is also some speculation regarding cognitive decline in the Elder later in his life. You can hardly blame him for failing to prevent the suicide of a young, mentally ill man who thinks he wants to be a monk at his monastery. Drawing blanket conclusions on such sensitive issues when we know so little is very unfair.
Mount Athos is always going to be stricter than the layman’s parish. How people are accepted into the faith is and was variable, even in Byzantine times. Sometimes it was done by full triple immersion baptism, even if they had been baptized Roman Catholic before, and sometimes by Chrismation. It depends on the individual’s knowledge, spiritual maturity, how close to Orthodoxy their background credo was and so on, as judged by their Orthodox spiritual father. Few things are black and white, wrong or right in Orthodoxy. Dogma is one of those black and white things, but otherwise, there are a lot of gray areas. Every monastery has their own “rule” and when visiting them, which is a privilege and not a right, one should do so with a stance of obedient humility rather than self-righteous indignation. The monks do not invent their own Orthodoxy. They pick their spot on the gray sliding scale of Orthodoxy, usually as far away from the black and as close to the white as possible. Their strictness is to foster humility through obedience, something I still struggle with. If the convert’s spiritual father was someone other than a monastic elder, he or she may be required to repeat the sacrament of conversion to ensure that a non-Orthodox is not communing with them.
Since I am not a new convert, I don’t know what you mean by the “seductiveness of Radical Anti-Ecumenism.” Perhaps you mean accusing our Hierarchs of progressing towards a false union because the non-Orthodox are observing our services or attending the same social functions or praying together with our Hierarchs for world peace and such. Although I agree that it may be radical to assume that such behaviours are necessarily going to lead us to a false union, they are very sticky points. This is because co-prayer with the heterodox can be scandalous, and particularly so when done with non-Christians. There are multiple church canons, such as Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea, which explicitly forbids joining in prayer with heretics or schismatics. The primary reason for this prohibition is to avoid giving the impression that Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians are in full communion, when they are not. In other words, not to scandalize the faithful. Why is that bad? Because not everyone is strong in their faith, and those with weak faith may distance themselves from the Church if scandalized, which is spiritually harmful to them. This hurts the body of Christ and can cause schisms within the church. The reason is pastoral and for the unity of the faith. I don’t think this is radical as one must always be sensitive, especially if one is a cleric, to all the stages of spiritual maturity within their flock.
Elder Ephraim used to say it was OK if an Orthodox person led the prayer when a bunch of different people got together privately to say grace before dinner, for instance. However, in public, co-prayer is a no-no, especially amongst clerics. At a public inter-faith gathering of any kind, each person can pray for themselves. I’ve never thought of “radical” pro- or anti-ecumenism. I consider it good ecumenism when we work towards reuniting the Orthodox Churches that fell out of communion with one another because of unfortunate circumstances or human weaknesses. We have to stop labeling whole groups of people as “Monophysites” for instance, because of their past history, when they show that they believe the same dogmas (which consist of Christian Truths and not petty things like small “t” (cultural) traditions, language or the calendar) and profess the same faith as the rest of the Orthodox world. Good ecumenism is also evangelizing to the non-Orthodox by educating them on Orthodoxy. There is a big difference between educating (catechizing) and proselytizing (forcefully persuading), which does not provide the same degree of freedom and can become problematic.
Bad ecumenism is to work at uniting the Orthodox with the non-Orthodox in full communion, as a demonstration of “love” and “equity in diversity” at any cost, and with no catechism or conversion, which compromises Orthodox dogmas and Truths. That kind of union is false, phony, and spiritually dangerous. It lets in every single heresy and allows it run wild with no checks or balances, and it makes a mockery of the Faith. Hence the term “Panheresy.” This is the most demonic thing that can happen to our Church, and it is completely understandable why there is so much resistance, which you call “radical,” to anything that even appears to threaten the unity of the Faith. Didn’t Elpidophoros recently say that there are many paths (ways) up the mountain? How is a faithful lay person supposed to react to that? A statement like that which took only seconds to make, rocked the Orthodox world. Add to that every other scandal that has been aired, and you will get a” radical” response.
“I am the Way (not the ways) and the Truth (not the truths) and the Life,” said Christ. “No one comes to the Father except through Me,” said Christ. There is only one Way, one Truth and one Christ, who established only one Church. If you are to believe in Christ, you must believe in the whole Christ. You cannot just believe in parts of what He said or did. That is not true Christianity. True Christianity is not selective. It is the whole package. If you add or take away from the package, you no longer have true Christianity. When you take away or add to the TRUTH you no longer have the whole TRUTH. You just have some of the puzzle pieces and distortion. In other words, true Christianity, cannot and does not change. This is what gets people upset and they behave, according to some, “radically” because they know that one seemingly small change begets another, and another and if you want to know the end result of that, just look at Christianity in the West…that is the very sort of thing that our converts want to escape from, and what our cradle Orthodox, like me, want to avoid. The discomfort this causes, may cause some of us to behave “radically.”