Another Sermon on the Cross

(Or notes on one -- let's pray that this comes out well tomorrow):

You've heard of The Secret -- this book that's apparently a cross between The Da Vinci Code and The Power of Positive Thinking.

Well, I'll tell you two secrets!

The first has to do with a question they've been wrestling with since the middle ages: "Would Christ had become incarnate if there was no Fall?" (Or in other words, "Would there have been a necessity for the Cross if Adam and Eve had not sinned?")

This is our picture of the conversation in Heaven just after the Creation:

"Hey, aren't they awesome, just look at them -- No, wait, stop -- OH RATS!!"

"What are we going to do now?"

"You want me to do WHAT?"

"And then they're going to WHAT??"

The problem with this is, you have some very important Fathers of the Church saying some very strange things like this:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons: "Since He Who saves already existed, it was necessary that he who would be saved should come into existence, that the One Who saves should not exist in vain."

And St. Maximus the Confessor: Adam fell "together with his coming-into-being", at that very moment!

In fact, there was no time in which man existed and lived before the fall -- and this was God's expectation from the very beginning. The first secret is that conversation in Heaven actually went like this:

"You know what's going to happen?"

"I know."

"You know what you'll have to do?"

"I know."

"You know what this will cost?"

"I know."

"And you still want to go ahead and do this?"

"I do, I do, I do."

Or rather, "Amen, Amen, Amen."

The first secret is that God loves us SO MUCH that with full knowledge of what's going to happen, of what He'll have to do, of what it will cost, He creates us, inscribing the Cross into the very structure of Creation. The Cross is there from the very beginning.

And the second secret has to do with how all of this can manage not to be in vain. The second secret is that “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. [The Savior] did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (St. Mark 2:17)

If we claim to be well, if we set ourselves with the righteous, He won't save us -- we won't be asking Him to! He is the Savior from all eternity, but we will declare that we have no need of one. The second secret is that we have to mean it when we say "I believe, O Lord, and I confess, that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."

And that's what this season of Lent is all about. To take the time, to do the work, to be able not only to say this, but to know this, to believe it and confess it as the deepest reality about ourselves: "I am the chief of sinners. It's my fault all this has happened. You have come to this Cross because of me."

And when we can say this with true conviction -- with our own "Amen, Amen, Amen" -- then He Who Is, the Savior from all eternity, will joyfully do what He took upon Himself to do from before He made us, from the very moment of our creation. He Who Is is He Who Saves. Us.

The Sunday of the Cross

Next Sunday, we will celebrate the Sunday of the Cross. The two Sundays following, we will remember two great Saints: great specifically because they took up their crosses. Saint John of the Ladder, first -- because, of course, the means he describes for attaining the Kingdom of Heaven, the Ladder of Divine Ascent, is the Cross -- and then, Saint Mary of Egypt, about whom we will sing, in her troparion, "In you, O Mother, was carefully preserved what is according to the image, for you took up the Cross and followed Christ." Finally, we will come to Palm Sunday, when the Lord enters Jerusalem for no other reason than to take up His own Cross.

The common thread, then, is the Cross.

“It's all about the Cross”, it appears. But why?

Let me answer by asking you a different question. (Really different!) Your favorite musician these days, whoever it is: how did you get to know them?

You hear a song.

For me, just as an example, it was I Can't Make You Love Me. I heard it on the radio 15 years ago, back in 1991. Had no idea who was singing it; I just knew it affected me, it got to me. It took a while to figure out that it was Bonnie Raitt singing it. So I bought the album it was on, Luck of the Draw. I liked everything on it. So I started buying her older stuff, going back to the beginning, to find out who she was, and what she'd done before.

I didn't meet her “in chronological order.” It started with a powerful encounter in the present: a song on the radio. Only then was there a reason to look back to the beginning. Bonnie Raitt had many albums out before the one with the song I heard. But the history, “the whole story”, as it were, only came later; everything started with what was in front of me, a song on the radio.

It works the very same way with God.

You start with what's in front of you – there is no other way. And what is in front of us is Jesus Christ, crucified and exalted. Listen to how St. Paul delivers the whole gospel message in just a few words:

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, emphasis mine)

Christ died, He was buried, He rose again according to the Scriptures, and He was seen. This is where we meet Christ -- the only place we can meet Christ: on the Cross, dying for our sins, buried, and risen on the third day. There is no other starting point; and there is no need for anything more:

And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:1-2, emphasis mine)

The crucified and exalted Lord is What, or rather, Who we encounter in the Church -- and from that real and powerful encounter, and only from that, can we look backwards, at the "history" of God at work in the world, and forward, to the Kingdom which is to come. Only from that real and powerful encounter can we come to know God.

How does this work? Listen to how Luke and Cleopas come to know Christ -- which sounds weird, of course, since they were His disciples and, in theory, had known Him for years:

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. And He said to them, "What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?"

Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, "Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?"

And He said to them, "What things?"

And they said to Him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.

They did not recognize Jesus in His resurrected body, that much is obvious. But I would argue that, to this point, for all the time they had been with him during His public ministry, Luke and Cleopas did not know him, they had no clue as to who He really was or what He had really done for them. And I'd be right:

Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. But they constrained Him, saying, "Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.

And He went in to stay with them. Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?"

So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. (Luke 24:13-35)

He was known to them, eucharistically-speaking, in the breaking of His body. He was known to them only on the Cross.

We, too, start with Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and from this alone, from this powerful encounter, everything else proceeds; in His crucifixion and His exaltation, and in this alone, Jesus Christ is revealed as the Lord, risen indeed. It is the only place to start, and it is the ultimate place to start.

For in bearing His Cross, Jesus totally and completely reveals what it means to be God -- and what it means to say that “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) In other words, the love of God is fully realized and fully revealed when He takes our sins upon Himself and dies for us, He who was completely without sin, and not subject to death Himself. And Jesus Christ is fully realized and fully revealed as God, Who is love, when He rises from the dead.

In fact, it is our faith that the only way to truly know God and to know God's love is by looking at Jesus Christ crucified, which explains why the Jews, God's chosen and covenanted people, who had the Law and the Prophets – that is to say, they had the whole history -- came so close, but then missed something truly essential:

But their minds were hardened. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:14-16)

Why was this so hard for them? Why did they completely pass by the full revelation of God and His love when it was right in front of their eyes?

For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)

They failed to see, their eyes were veiled, because the Cross was a stumbling block to them. A scandal. An offense.

But not to us. To us the Cross is precious and holy, the treasure of treasures. And we preach Christ crucified, fully realized and fully revealed only when He takes up His Cross: His Cross, which is, therefore, at the center of everything.

And we, as human beings made in His image and likeness, looking upon His Cross, are only fully realized, only fully revealed, when we -- in His image and likeness -- take up our own.

Seems like a bargain to me...

"A major global consulting firm has reviewed Iraq's state-owned enterprises and estimated that it would cost $100 million to restart all of them and employ more than 150,000 Iraqis-$100 million. That's as much money as the American military will spend in Iraq in the next 12 hours."

Read Fareed Zakaria's recent Newsweek column on "The Surge that Might Work". Seems to me that if we left a day early, and used the money we'd save to put 150,000 Iraqis back to work, that would be the very definition of a win-win.

[READ IT]

Orthodox Question of the Day

QOD: Why do we use so many formal prayers? The Lord's Prayer is the only one that I am aware of that Jesus specifically instructed us on. Why do we even use the "prayers of our holy Fathers" in the first place -- why not just our own personal ones? So many of them sound identical, I kind of imagine God thinking "Can't they come up with anything new?" It just seems so, what is the word I am looking for... "scripted"... not personal. Thanks...

AOD: Great question! Jesus, Himself, warned, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation." (Matthew 23:14) And think about how He introduces His (the Lord's) prayer:

And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. (etc.) -- St. Matthew 6:7-9

He seems to be warning us precisely against long prayers and repetitions.

But when you look more closely, it's actually hypocritical long prayers made for a pretense, and vain repetitions that He's condemning, not long prayers or repeated prayers themselves. For long prayers, it's hard to beat the "Prayer of Azariah and the Three Young Men" (Daniel 3:24-90, found only in the Greek version of the Old Testament); and for repetitive prayers, Psalm 136 echoes the phrase "For His mercy endures forever!" a total of 26 times. We use both of these prayers liturgically: the former on Holy Saturday (and actually, during every Matins Canon, though you don't usually hear it read), and the latter on the Matins services for feast days, as the "Polyeleos", or hymn of "many mercies". It's actually named (and beloved) for its repetitiveness!

The point of using these prayers -- and other long, complex, and formal prayers -- is, first of all, to take advantage of "best practices". They are magnificent, beautiful, and compelling, and obviously they worked (i.e., God took notice of them), or nobody would have bothered writing them down for posterity! We use these prayers for the same reason that we read classic literature: there is a timeless beauty and value to them such that they survived the Darwinian process of history -- survival of the fittest.

But we also use them to teach us how and for what we should pray. That is precisely the purpose of beginning our services with "The Great Litany", which is a grand survey of all the things we should be including in our own prayers. By putting great examples in front of us in the services, by nourishing us with good and healthy prayers in the public assembly, when we go into our rooms and shut our doors -- as Jesus taught,

But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. --St. Matthew 6:6,

we will be able to draw from the treasury of the Church's great prayers to inspire our own. We won't have to wing it.

Of course, there are times when the Spirit fills our hearts and the prayers just come, but this doesn't happen (for most of us) all the time. We need help getting started, and we can draw on so many of the "formal" prayers to put into words what we only wish we could come up with ourselves. It's like a lovesick teenager quoting Shakespeare to his beloved when he finds his own poetry wanting. He may have moments of inspiration, but when the well runs dry, he can always turn to Romeo and Juliet for help.

Like so many aspects of the faith, when you look at "scripted" formal prayers, and our own intensely personal ones, it's not either/or -- it's both/and.

Make sense?

ds

Orthodox Question of the Day

One of my parishioners at St. George's always asks the best questions, often in person, but sometimes by e-mail. I got her permission to post the questions and answers in the hope that they're more broadly useful. Keep in mind that these are e-mail dialogues, not doctoral dissertations, so I'll ask your forgiveness in advance for the occasional imprecision and a total lack of footnotes.

Q.O.D.: With all of our icons, how do we know that the people depicted look like they do -- in terms of physical appearance? Did someone paint pictures of Jesus that got passed on through time, or of Mary or the Apostles...?

A.O.D.: The thing to remember about icons is that they're not intended to be photographic. They are meant to depict a spiritual rather than a physical reality. So over time, as the Church comes to understand the spiritual characteristics of a given saint, they are "canonized" in the forms of biography (the saint's life), hymnography (the various services to them), and iconography. Just as there are "canonical" forms for the biographies and hymnographies, there are also canonical forms for the icons. A martyr always holds a small cross. A healer, a small bottle of medicine. The Theotokos is always depicted in the same sorts of attire, always (with the exception of deisis icons, which are always done in a series centered on Christ) with Christ, never alone. She always looks the same -- i.e., you'll never see a blonde Theotokos, or a black Theotokos. It's not about making her relevant to the "artist", nor about giving flight to his or her creative fancies about the subject. It's about soberly, traditionally, and canonically expressing the spiritual realities about her in parallel with the scriptural realities, the liturgical realities, etc.

That being said, in the case of modern saints (for example, St. Raphael of Brooklyn) where we have photographs, there is usually a reasonable resemblance between the icon and the subject. In the case of more ancient saints, perhaps the original iconographers knew the person, and the icon bore a reasonable resemblance. But fairly quickly, the icon of that saint became enshrined in its own tradition, so that an icon of St. Nicholas is always recognizable as St. Nicholas, 1700 years later.

Regarding Jesus in particular, there is the tradition that He left an impression of His face in "the holy napkin". Regarding the Theotokos in particular, there is the tradition that St. Luke painted three icons of her, which established the canonical traditions about her appearance in icons.

If these traditions are historically accurate, you could say that the resulting icons are accurate depictions. But again, this is very secondary in importance to the spiritual accuracy.

Hope this helps!

ds