CHRISTIANS AND GUNS - WEIGHING IN ON THE GUN DEBATE…

As usual, when the sinfulness of mankind rears it ugly head that results in a “national” tragedy, the left leaning politicians, pundits and news media jump at the opportunity to push their agenda in the name of trying to prevent more evil and tragedy.  They always attack the symptoms or the actions but never address the real cause.  They always want to throw money and meaningless laws at the problems but want to ignore the issues that help to create the problems.  Guns, they say, are the problem and the solution is less freedom and more government control.  Never do they acknowledge the problem of human sinfulness or the loss of respect for human life and accountability to God perpetuated by a denial of any divine authority and the demeaning of human life through the promotion of humanism, evolution, a-morality and abortion, or the violence perpetuated by the sub-culture of rappers, rockers, video games, movies, etc.  They fight to promote all these things while pretending to try to solve the problems that these things promote and perpetuate.

If the truth be told, the ultimate goal and hidden agenda of the left is not to solve society’s problems but to use them as a means to create class warfare, overthrow a society built on traditional Judeo-Christian values and usher in a brave new world of Marxist-socialism based on the worship of man and science.  They are haters of the idea of any ultimate authority or accountability above man.

BUT NEITHER DO I AGREE WITH THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT.   While I would not want to be associated or identified with the likes of the Obamas, Clintons, Polosis, Feinsteins, Shumers, Michael Moores, Al Gores or Jesse Jacksons (to mention a few), neither do I identify with those who are on a campaign to promote guns and arm everyone for self-defense against the government.  I am especially perplexed that so many of these are Christians.  

The idea that I should arm myself to fight against the government because the government threatens to limit my freedoms or to persecute me is contrary to the Gospel teachings of Christ and the examples of millions of saints and martyrs through the ages.  It’s as though professing Christians ignore the clear teachings of Christ and the examples of the saints of Christ.   What did the Saviour do when the government infringed on his freedom and persecuted him and led him to execution?  When he was falsely accused and unjustly treated he opened not his mouth.  He turned the other check.  He humbled himself and endured all things.  When St. Peter drew his sword to defend him from the government, he rebuked Peter reminding him that his kingdom is not of this world.  Christ taught his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount to turn the other cheek, resist not evil and if someone takes your coat let him have your cloak also.   St. Paul tells us that we should cultivate the mind of Christ who when he was reviled, reviled not again.” Are these words of Holy Scripture no longer relevant for Christians?  How can we follow Christ while doing the opposite of his teachings?  Did not his apostles follow in his footsteps?  Which one of them took up arms against a cruel and unjust government?  They did not resist.  They did not expect good from the godless. They submitted to torture, imprisonment and death.  What did the countless martyrs do?  Take up arms?  No, they followed the example of their master clearly understanding this world was not their home or their place of true citizenship.  They did not trust in princes or governments or hope in human justice or worldly kingdoms.  Their hope and trust was in the Kingdom of God - the peace, righteousness and mercy of Christ in his Church, and the Kingdom of Heaven to come that would overthrow all the kingdoms of this world.   They knew that this present world is under the control of the god of this world and no friend of God.  They knew that all the kingdoms of this world are judgment bound and not a place for Christians to find hope or place their devotions. Why has all of this been forgotten or ignored?  Could it be that America’s founding spirit of rebellion and the false notion of manifest destiny ultimately gave birth to the same deceptions in American Protestantism and Evangelicalism that now refuses to believe that the America once known is no more, or that with guns it can be created again?  Or perhaps it simply reflects the disconnect from the Church and the loss of communion with the saints that no longer honors, commemorates or reads the lives of the saints and martyrs.

And by the way, has everyone forgotten what happened to the people who had guns to defend themselves against the government at Waco? 

WHEN GOD DISAPPOINTS YOU

            I would venture to guess that everyone who takes their Christian Faith seriously and tries to walk with God has at one time or another felt that God has let them down or did not answer their sincere prayers.  Sometimes these may be fleeting thoughts and feelings.  At other times the feeling of disappointment with God can become very troubling to the soul and lead to depression, spiritual coldness, rebellion or loss of faith.

Two Examples

 When I was a child I heard of a man who experienced such disappointment towards God that he ended up turning completely from faith to agnosticism, if not atheism.  I would dare say that many people who profess to be agnostics or atheists are there because of some deep disappointment or sense of unfairness they have felt towards God.  Sometimes it may be personal and at other times just a general sense of disappointment or doubt such as is found in the question “Why does God allow innocent people to suffer?”  

            My Dad, who passed away in 1978, was a deeply spiritual man who spent most of his free time reading and memorizing the Bible and in prayer.  He could quote whole chapters from memory.  After I would go to bed at night he would read and pray into the late hours of the night.   Many times I could hear him praying for his children.  But there came a day when he experienced bitter disappointment towards God. 

            Dad believed that war is evil and contrary to the will of God.  When World War II broke out he had two sons who were eligible for the draft.  He prayed fervently that they would be delivered from the war and for reasons I don’t remember they were both exempted.  Then, after the death of two wives and marriage to my mother, who was much younger than he was, he had more children.  When the Vietnam War broke out my brother was draft age.   With the firm conviction that war is evil and that God had promised to grant whatever we ask in faith, once again he prayed fervently that my brother would be delivered from the war.  But then my brother was drafted and sent to Vietnam.   My Dad’s faith went into a tailspin that lasted for years and from which he never fully recovered. 

            He was disappointed, hurt and angry.  Had not God promised to hear and answer the prayer of faith?  But God didn’t.  He felt betrayed and full of doubts.  He stopped praying and reading and wouldn’t go to church.  “What’s the use?” he said, “Where is God?”  He was no longer certain about God and became somewhat of an agnostic.  For years he grieved and struggled.  Eventually he was able to start praying again but mostly repeating over and over, “Lord, have mercy”.   That seemed to be the most he could do.  Then, in time, he recovered enough to start reading the Bible again.  His last years in illness were spent praying, “Lord, have mercy”.

How Do We Perceive God?

So what are we to do when we feel disappointed thinking God has let us down or isn’t there for us?  First, we must face some common human fallacies pertaining to our ideas about God and our reactions to God.  Our conclusions about a subject are only as valid as the ideas the conclusions are based upon.  If we begin with faulty assumptions we end up with faulty conclusions.

            The moment I question God’s justice, or accuse God of failing me, or feel God has disappointed me, I have already created a god after my own image.  I now perceive God as another human being.  If God is truly God then He is above all human frailty, guile or capriciousness.  He is above all human judgments and assessments.  The moment I set myself in judgment of God’s actions or lack thereof, I have set myself above Him and made myself God.  How can I, a sinful and blind human being, set in judgment of God as though I am all knowing?   The very idea that I know more or better than God is already to make myself God.  If God is truly God, the only valid response is one we learn from suffering Job.  When his wife told him to curse God for all the tragedy and devastation God allowed to come to him he replied, “Though He slay me, yet will I serve Him.”

How Do We Perceive Ourselves?

            Then there is this subtle, semi-conscious idea that lies just below the surface that somehow because I am a believer I should be delivered from the tragedies and sufferings of this world.  Rather, I should ask myself, “Why should I escape or be exempt from the suffering, hurt, pain and tragedy that is common to a fallen world and that so many others have to endure?”  Is it not my arrogance, my self-righteousness and self-centeredness that make me think so? The Christian Faith has never offered any promise of escape from the suffering and consequences of a fallen world this side of eternity.  In fact, the suffering of this world is seen as a vehicle of God’s mercy that can lead us to the humility and repentance that turns suffering into redemption.  The cross of our Saviour is, of course, the ultimate example of this and His followers are called to take up the cross, deny self, and follow Him. 

            The very sinfulness that causes us to think we should be above the suffering that is common to mankind also blinds us to what is sometimes the reason for our failures that lead to suffering.  Rather than blaming God we could ask ourselves if or how our wrong desires and choices have led us to the place where we feel abandoned by God.  Often it is we who by our choices, desires and associations have abandoned and disappointed Him.  Often we choose certain paths convincing ourselves it is what God wants while failing to see that our motives, desires and intentions are never completely pure and selfless.

The Alternative Is Worse Than The Problem

            Finally, we must consider the alternative.  If I conclude that God is unjust or has failed me or not lived up to His promises and I can no longer believe in or follow such a God, then what is left?  Only the absolute darkness, emptiness and absurdity of a world and life with no meaning or purpose.   It is the world that Solomon described as “vanity of vanities, all is vanity”.   So I must ask myself, “Which is better?  A God that is beyond my understanding and comprehension or a world and life of total absurdity with no meaning or purpose?”

            So in my disappointments I should ask myself some questions.  Is my faith in God or in myself?  Will I humble myself or exalt myself? How did I contribute to my disappointment? Will I trust in God or trust in the absurdity of a godless world?

           

           

           

A Churchless Christianity – Separating Christ and Salvation from His Church

Today, a TV preacher of a leading mega church in town was inviting everyone to the upcoming community Easter service.  They rent the sports arena at the local university and invite big name performers/musicians to entertain the thousands who flock to the entertainment.  He said the service is a community service and “it’s not about a particular church.”  His own church portrays itself as un or non-denominational.

As I reflected on this announcement that salvation is not about a particular church, and this whole concept of entertainment as worship and the glorification of celebrities as a pretext for celebrating Easter as a side-bar, I recalled looking at the website of this particular mega church some time ago.  On the website they spoke of baptism saying it is just a public testimony and has nothing to do with our salvation.

The Prevailing Heresies of our Day

This mega church and its teachings reflect the great and prevailing heresies of our day that has created something called “Christianity” but bears little resemblance to the historic Christian Faith of the Bible, the Apostles and the Saints, Fathers and Confessors of ages past.

What is Non-denominational?

First, there is the idea of a non-denominational church.  There is no such thing.  Every group has its body of tradition from which it interprets the Bible and every group has it doctrinal statements.  Or do they mean to suggest that they hold no particular doctrines as true or false – that they have no particular beliefs?  This is close to the truth since in actuality they don’t believe there is one true body of Christian truth.  They believe in relativism - that all or no one holds the full and absolute truth.  But when all is said and done, all such churches are either Baptist or Charismatic or a combination of both.  The claim of non or interdenominational is a deceitful claim but the unthinking masses fall for it.  It is akin to the cover up used by Mormons that cloak their real teachings for the purpose of disarming and drawing people in.

The Meaning of Baptism

To teach that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation except as a public act of obedience and witness, as it says on their website, is a clear and blatant denial of the teachings of Holy Scripture which they claim to honor and exult.  One has only to look up the word baptism in a good Bible Concordance and read all the references and it becomes very clear that baptism is not at all what contemporary Christianity is teaching.  Their vision is blurred by their human traditions, as was that of the Pharisees.

To stress there is no particular church is to replace the Church by something called Christianity.  It is the leading and prevailing heresy of our day, which separates Christ and Salvation from His Church and portrays the Church as invisible and indefinable and the local church as a man-made organization.  It is a denial of the doctrine of the Church that the Church has held from the beginning and is confessed and taught by the apostles, apostolic fathers and all the ancient creeds of the Church.  I know that some groups still recite some of the creeds (most often they make up new ones to their liking) but even those who recite the ancient creeds attach a different meaning to the words Catholic and Church than that which was held by the composers of the creeds.

The New Testament never refers to anything called Christianity but refers to the Church over 100 times.  Christ’s mission was to build His Church, against which the gates of hell could not prevail.  The Church is His Body on earth.  The Church is His Bride and He will return for His Church.  And no, His Bride is not invisible or undefined or composed of numerous and conflicting brides.  And no, the Church is not composed of all those who “believe in Jesus”.   Jesus Himself said that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter heaven but only those who do the will of the Father.  The will of the Father is revealed in the Church that Christ founded, which is His Body on earth.  There is one Church, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one Spirit, according to the teachings of Holy Scripture. 

The Old Testament Church

In the Old Testament there was no churchless Israel or chosen people of God.  Their faith was clearly defined and the teachings and perimeters of that faith were clearly known.  To be a part of God’s chosen people you had to enter his “Church” and embrace that body of truth and that way of worship and that communion of obedience and way of life that God had revealed.  Such were called proselytes. There could be no little groups on the side ignoring the one true Church of Israel and still claiming to love and know God.  The Samaritans tried it with a reformed religion very similar and close to Judaism.  But what did the Saviour say to Photini at the well?   Did He say it is not about a particular church, or we all believe in the same God and same salvation? No! He said,  “You know not what you worship for salvation is from the Jews”.   There was no churchless Judaism or a hybrid brand separated from the one true Church of God.

The New Testament Church

The same is true in the New Testament.  There is no churchless Christian Faith and there is no separation of Christ or Salvation from the Church.  Anyone who believed in Christ came to the Church that was under apostolic authority, was baptized into that Church as the Body of Christ and partook of salvation within that community.  Each community had one apostolic Church outside of which it was understood there is no Church and no salvation.  In the creed of St. Athanasius that reflects the clear and universal teachings of the Church up to that time in the third century he stated:

Whoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic [meaning fullness of the faith held from the beginning] Faith.  Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

The idea that people can find Christ and find Salvation apart from His Church and then create their own churches according to their whims is totally foreign to all that the Bible teaches and all that the Universal Christian Faith has always taught.

First Sunday of Great Lent

Sunday of Orthodoxy

TRAGEDY UPON TRAGEDY

Today on the news I watched the culmination of a great and heart wrenching tragedy.  It was the end of a trial of a young woman in Nashville.  She got pregnant and in shame hid it from her Christian parents.  Then, at home, she secretly gave birth to twin boys, smothered them and threw them away.  

Today the verdict was handed down - guilty on two counts of premeditated murder and child abuse in the first degree.  She received a mandatory sentence of two life terms.  Watching her family in pain and tears was heart wrenching.  She, however, remained composed, clutching a Bible to her heart and mouthing to her family, "I'm ok", and pointing towards heaven with her index finger. 

I couldn't help but wonder where the father is and why he doesn't have any culpability in this tragedy.

Then I was filled with a feeling of anger and disgust towards this great God-fearing nation with liberty and justice for all.  As great as this tragedy was/is there is another tragedy even greater.  A few weeks before she killed her babies, a doctor could have done it legally, been paid handsomely for it and praised and glorified by the great liberal and compassionate intelligentsia and ignorant and blind masses of society.  And all those politicians and the liberal public, some of whom dare to blaspheme God by calling themselves Christians,  fight to defend the doctors right to kill babies and promote it as a great American liberty and justice for all while sending this poor dear woman to life in prison.

I find it next to impossible to love or respect such an America and have no desire to salute her flag.  

A Treatise on cats, dogs and other pets. 

Pets are a part of God’s creation and expression of his love. Any hostility they display towards one another or humans is the result of the disorder and enmity resulting from the fall of creation and the effects of sin.

 Pets have a soul, but not an immortal soul. Their soul is on a lower level than that of humans. They were not made in the likeness and image of God. The soul of animals was created. The soul of man is the breathe of God breathed into man. Animals are not reasoning or rational souls but operate by instinct. When they die, their soul ceases to exist. They are not immortal in the likeness of God. They have no need of salvation, as does man, since they have no free will or rational soul. 

 It is wrong and evil to mistreat pets. They are wonderful companions, guardians, guides, etc. But it is also wrong to think of them on the same level as human beings. In our society today there is a tendency to overindulge animals and attach human qualities to them. In many instances suffering pets get more consideration and compassion than suffering human beings and for some there is greater concern for the protection of pets than for unborn children. We must be careful that we keep a proper perspective of God’s creation and the place and role of all according to God’s design.

Lutherans Write the Patriarch: How the “German Orthodox Church” Almost Happened

Sdn Vincent Martini —  March 3, 2013 —Copied from "On Behalf Of All" blog

A century after the fall of the Roman empire to the Ottomans, a Greek deacon named Demetrius came in contact with Philipp Melanchthon, one of Luther’s closest collaborators and systematic theologians of the early Protestant Reformation (ca. AD 1558).

Like Luther, Melanchthon believed that their “reformed” faith — as a “peeling away” of the numerous developments and supposed abuses of the Latin Church over the centuries — would be virtually one and the same as the faith of the “Greeks” in the east. To that end, the leading “Lutheran” theologians of the day had their Augsburg Confession translated into Greek, and sent with their new-found friend in Demetrius back to the Patriarchate of Constantinople (ca. AD 1559). Melanchthon died the next year, and so his successors in the reformation movement were able to continue in the effort.

When the Patriarch (Joasaph II) received the letter, the doctrines within were seen as “embarrassing” and “heretical” by Orthodox standards (Ernst Benz, Wittenberg and Byzanz, pp. 73ff), and so no reply was given. It was believed at this time in history that it is better to “be friendly” by giving no reply (pretending that it was never received) than to reply with condemnation and no-doubt spoil any potential friendship with the Germans. Demetrius himself, having no reply to bring back to the Lutherans, journeyed to Transylvania where he eventually reposed. The first effort at both friendly contact and ecclesiastical fellowship between the Lutherans and the Orthodox came to an abrupt end.

In 1570, a German ambassador named David von Ungnad arrived at Constantinople, accompanied by a Lutheran theologian named Stephen Gerlach, and he became friends with the chief secretary of the new Patriarch, Jeremias II. Incidentally, Jeremias II is considered to be one of the greatest Patriarchs and theologians of the Patriarchate during the Ottoman captivity, and so the Lutherans were rather fortunate to have made contact with him. A Greek-speaking German named Martin Kraus (a.k.a. Crusius) from Tübingen was appointed by Gerlach to carry on a theological “dialogue” with Jeremias II.

A fresh Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession was made and sent to the Patriarch. A copy was also sent to the leader of the Georgian Orthodox Church, but it is not clear whether or not they ever received it (no reply was ever given). Along with the confession, the Lutherans included a personal statement to Jeremias II. They were confident that their beliefs were practically synonymous with those of the Greeks:

… Because of the distance between their countries there was some difference in their ceremonies, [but] the Patriarch would acknowledge that they had introduced no innovation into the principal things necessary for salvation; and that they embraced and preserved, as far as their understanding went, the faith that had been taught to them by the Apostles, the Prophets and the Holy Fathers, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Seven Councils and the Holy Scriptures.
Stephen Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity

The immediate reaction of Jeremias II to the confession was not entirely unlike that of his predecessor Joasaph II, although this time it could not be ignored, with the Germans in Constantinople eagerly awaiting. In cooperation with the Synod of Constantinople (all bishops of the Patriarchate), the Patriarch sent a response on May 15, 1576, responding to each and every one of the 21 articles of the confession in great detail. As Runciman notes: “Jeremias replied to each in turn, stating wherein he agreed or disagreed with the doctrines contained in them. His comments are valuable, as they add up to a compendium of Orthodox theology at this date” (Ibid.).

In the first article, he agrees with the Lutherans on their reception of the (Nicene) Creed, but notes that the “double procession” of the Holy Spirit (the Filioque) is an unacceptable addition of the Latins. He “amplifies” the Lutheran interpretation of the Creed with twelve points related to the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., and also appends a list of eight “cardinal virtues” alongside the “seven mortal sins.”

In the article on “Justification by Faith,” the Patriarch quotes from Saint Basil at length, emphasizing that “faith without works is dead,” that one should not “presume upon grace,” while also denying that some people are predestined to an unconditional election.

He spoke highly of the Lutheran understanding of the sacraments, but was careful to point out that there are “at least seven” sacraments alongside both baptism and the holy Eucharist. Jeremias largely agreed with the eighth and ninth articles, which spoke to “validity of sacraments” when administered by “evil priests” and the commendation of infant baptism.

In the tenth article, perhaps the most substantial area of disagreement was seen. Jeremias condemned the “Latin” tradition of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, objected to the Lutheran removal of the epiclesis or “calling down” of the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy, and emphasized the “change” of the bread and the wine into the very body and blood of Christ (following the scriptures and Jesus’ own words), but not according to “matter,” as the Latins claimed (i.e. rejecting transubstantiation).

The Patriarch was in general agreement with articles eleven through fourteen, making statements of gentle correction and admonition throughout (objecting, for example, to a view of confession as a “judicial” tool, but rather for spiritual “healing”).

In the fifteenth article, another area of stark difference was found. The Lutheran ambivalence to the celebration of various feasts and commemorations was offensive to the Patriarch, and he quoted from the fathers and scriptures at length, showing these to be not only necessary but also of great spiritual value, calling them “lasting reminders of the life of Christ on earth and of the witness of the saints” (Ibid.).

Articles sixteen and seventeen drew little controversy, but the Patriarch noted in article eighteen (on “Free Will”) that the Lutheran understanding was incorrect, and that — following John Chrysostom, accompanied by a number of his own words — only those who are willing to “be saved” can do so. Salvation is not a “one off” event in time, but is acontinuing relationship with Jesus Christ that lasts forever.

Jeremias agrees with the confession in article nineteen that God is not the cause of evil in the world, but on the twentieth article (dealing again with “faith and works”), Runciman notes:

The Patriarch agrees about the dual need for faith and works; but why, he asks, if the Lutherans really value good works, do they censure feasts and fasts, brotherhoods and monasteries? Are these not good deeds done in honor of God and in obedience to His commands? Is a fast not an act of self-discipline? Is not a monastic fraternity an expression of fellowship? Above all, is not the taking of monastic vows an attempt to carry out Christ’s demand that we should rid ourselves of our worldly entanglements?

The final article, on the invocation of saints, was also condemned by Jeremias, noting from scripture the propriety of doing so.

He concluded his reply to the Lutherans with a summary of five main “points”: the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, the validity of both married and celibate clergy, the importance of the Liturgy, the necessity of the sacrament of repentance/confession for salvation, and a defense of the institution of monasteries and the ascetic ideal. He also included a few words of fatherly encouragement:

And so, most learned Germans, most beloved sons in Christ of Our Mediocrity, as you desire with wisdom and after great counsel and with your whole minds to join yourselves with us to what is the most holy Church of Christ, we, speaking like parents who love their children, gladly receive your charity and humanity into the bosom of our Mediocrity, if you are willing to follow with us the apostolic and synodical traditions and to subject yourselves to them. Then at last truly and sincerely one house will be built with us … and so out of two Churches God’s benevolence will make as it were one, and together we shall live until we are transferred to the heavenly fatherland.

His reply reached the theologians of Germany in 1576, and they worked diligently to reply to the Patriarch’s objections, making several clarifications on their viewpoints (especially as related to “Justification by Faith”), while standing firm on their beliefs regarding the existence of only two sacraments and the incorrectness of praying to reposed saints. Their response reached Jeremias in 1578, and the presence of Gerlach in Constantinople necessitated that he send another reply (which was done in May of 1579).

In this follow-up, Jeremias was less cordial than before, making it clear that unless the Lutherans peel away their innovations and fully accept the Orthodox-Catholic faith, they could not continue in dialogue or hope for ecclesiastical relations. A council of Lutheran scholars drafted a reply to Jeremias in the summer of 1580.

After Jeremias returned to office (for the second term), he eventually sent yet another letter to Tübingen in 1581. Resolute, he simply replied ”Go your own way, and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters written for the sake of friendship.”

The Lutherans stubbornly sent more clarifications and arguments to the Patriarch, but he never responded. The dialogue had come to an end.

Authorities and anti-authorities

When is it right to resist or disobey the government?

Excerpts from The True Church in the Last Days

By Vladimir Moss an Orthodox layman of Woking, Surrey, United Kingdom

Let us begin by studying the reign of the Antichrist.  In what does it consist?  What are its essential characteristics?

According to the holy apostles and fathers of the Church the reign of the Antichrist will be characterized by an extreme form of anarchy – that is, the absence of law and order.  Now the origin of all law and order is God, so all law and order, all true authority, is established by God.  That is the meaning of the apostle’s famous saying: “There is no power that is not of God; the powers that be are established by God” (Romans 13:1).  Christians honour the king and pray for the powers that be precisely in order to avoid the great evil of anarchy, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (I Timothy 2:2).  Since anarchy is opposed to God-established authority, it is opposed to God, and must therefore itself be opposed by all those who fear God and obey His holy will.

A ruler may be unjust and cruel, but as long as he prevents anarchy Christians must obey him.  Thus St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes: “Some rulers are given by God with a view to the improvement and benefit of their subjects and the preservation of justice; others are given with a view to producing fear, punishment and reproof; yet others are given with a view to displaying mockery, insult and pride – in each case in accordance with the deserts of the subjects.  [Does not this describe our president and our society? Editor’s note]   Thus…God’s judgment falls equally on all men”.  Again, St. Isidore of Pelusium writes that the evil ruler “has been allowed to spew out this evil, like Pharaoh, and, in such an instance, to carry out extreme punishment or to chastise those for whom great cruelty is required, as when the king of Babylon chastised the Jews.”

But there is a line beyond which an evil ruler ceases to be a ruler and becomes an anti-ruler, an unlawful tyrant, who is not to be obeyed.  Thus the Jews were commanded by God through the Prophet Jeremiah to submit to the king of Babylon, evil though he was; whereas they were commanded through another prophet, Moses, to resist and flee from the Egyptian Pharaoh, and rebelled again, with God’s blessing, under Antiochus Epiphanes.  For in the one case the authority,  though evil, was still an authority which it was beneficial to obey; whereas in the other cases the authority was in fact an anti-authority, obedience to which would have taken the people further away from God.

Anarchy, the absence of true authority, can be of two kinds: organized and disorganized.  When a true authority collapses, there usually follows a period of disorganized anarchy, which is characterized by individual crimes of all kinds – murder, robbery, rape, sacrilege, - that go unchecked and unpunished because of the absence of a true power.  Such was the period of Russian history that followed the collapse of the Orthodox empire in February 1917.  The Provisional government, having itself contributed to the collapse of the empire and having received its authority neither (through holy anointing) from God nor (by means of a popular vote) from men, was unable to check the rising tide of anarchy and collapsed ignominiously.  The disorganized anarchy of the Provisional government was followed by the organized anarchy of the Bolshevik “government”…

This was foreseen by many prophets.  And it was revealed that the coming period would be the beginning of the last times when it would be necessary to suffer in order not to receive the seal of the Antichrist. 

Now Christians are obliged to recognize every power that is in fact a power in the apostolic meaning of the word – that is, which at least tries to prevent anarchy by rewarding the good and punishing the bad (Romans 13:3); I Peter 2:14) Such a power does not have to be Christian:  even pagan, heretical and Muslim states punish those crimes that are recognized as such by the vast majority of mankind and are therefore recognized as legitimate by the Church.  However, such recognition can only be relative – relative, that is, to the degree to which the government does in fact establish order, - and in extreme case can be refused altogether.

Thus in the fourth century, the Persian King Sapor proposed to Hieromartyr Simeon, Bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, that he worship the sun, in exchange for which he would receive every possible honour and gift.  But if he refused.  Now already before he had made this proposal to Simeon, King Sapor had started to kill the clergy, confiscate church property and raze the churches to the ground.  So when he was brought before the king for his reply, St. Simeon not only refused to worship the sun but also, upon entering, refused to recognize the king by bowing down.  This omission of his previous respect for the king’s authority was noticed and questioned by the King.  St. Simeon replied: “Before I bowed down to you, giving you honour as a king, but now I come being brought to deny my God and Faith.  It is not good for me to bow before an enemy of my God!”

Again, when Julian the Apostate (361-363) came to the throne, the Church refused to recognize him.  Thus St. Basil the Great prayed for the defeat of Julian in his wars against the Persians; and it was through his prayers that the apostate was in fact killed, as was revealed by God to the holy hermit Julian of Mesopotamia.  At this, St. Basil’s friend, St. Gregory the Theologian wrote: “ I call to spiritual rejoicing all those who constantly remained in fasting, in mourning and prayer, and by day and by night besought deliverance from the sorrows that surrounded us and found a reliable healing from the evils in unshakeable hope…

Again, when the Norman Duke William invaded England in 1066 with the blessing of the Pope, and was crowned as the first Catholic king of England in the following year, the brother-bishops and hieromartyrs Ethelric and Ethelwine solemnly anathematized both him and the Pope, and called on the people to rise up against the false authority (they did, and 20% of the English population was killed by the papists).  [At this time the Church of England was still Orthodox.]  Again, in 1611 St. Hermogen, patriarch of Moscow, called on the Russian people to rise up against the crypto-Catholic false Demetrius, although the latter had been anointed by a supposedly Orthodox patriarch.

The state that is refused recognition by the Church is the state of organized anarchy – that is, the state in which crime is not only not punished, as in disorganized anarchy, but is confirmed and recognized as lawful.  Thus the essence of antichristian power is not simply the doing of evil – all states, even the most Orthodox, at times do evil – but the systematic recognition of evil as good, of lawlessness as the law, of the abnormal as the norm and even the aim of society.  Such a state is “the mystery of lawlessness” (II Thessalonians 2:7).  [Immediately there comes to my mind illegal immigration, gay marriages, silence of morality thru so called political correctness, legalized abortions and its enforcement on religious groups thru healthcare, protection of the Black Panthers and their voter intimidation, attempts to overthrow and bypass the Constitution and Congress and the cover-up of organized anarchy in high places in the government, etc.]

Such a state was the Bolshevik regime, which, taking advantage of the disorganized anarchy prevailing under the Provisional government, not only did not restore order, but consolidated, intensified and organized the chaos, made it the norm, made it “lawful”.  Church tradition calls unlawful councils, councils that preach heresy instead of truth, “robber councils”.  In the same way, unlawful states such as the Bolshevik regime can be called “robber states”, insofar as murder, robbery and sacrilege become the norm under them – indeed, are committed primarily by the state itself.  Robber states cannot command the obedience of God-fearing Christians, for they are not authorities in the apostolic sense of the word, but “anti-authorities”.  Rather, such states must be rebuked and rejected by them.

That is why, on November 11, 1917, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed a letter to the faithful calling the revolution “descended from the Antichrist” and declaring: “Open combat is fought against the Christian Faith, in opposition to all that is sacred, arrogantly abasing all that bears the name of God (II Thessalonians 2:4)… But no earthly kingdom founded on ungodliness can ever survive: it will perish from internal strife and party dissension.  It took some 75 years for the atheistic state of Russia to fall and the fall is not yet complete or certain.  [During those 75 years millions of Russian Orthodox Christians were tortured, sent to insane asylums, imprisoned and martyred.  Thousands fled to the catacombs to worship in secret.  Thousands of priests and bishops were martyred and the number of local churches was reduced from some 30,0000 to less than 5,000.] 

In January, 1918, Patriarch Tikhon and the Local Council meeting in Moscow anathematized the Bolsheviks and commanded the faithful: “I adjure all of you who are faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ not to commune with such outcasts of the human race in any matter whatsoever; ‘cast out the wicked from among you’ (I Corinthians 5:13).”  In other words, the Blosheviks were to be regarded, not only as apostates from Christ (that was obvious), but also as having no moral authority, no claim to obedience whatsoever. 

[Many members of the Church succumbed to the Communist regime with its threats, intimidations and tortures.  Some priests and bishops did the same in order to survive.  The Church was infiltrated with KGB agents serving as priests and bishops placed there by the communist party, and some are still there today.  They continued to call themselves Orthodox but were called the “Living Church” vs. the dead or catacomb Church. [Sort of like the mega-churches of today vs. the Orthodox]  They tried to modernize and Westernize the Church as the government and populace desired.  They agreed to pledge allegiance to the atheist government and to cooperate with it.  The Great Whore of Revelation got in bed with the Beast .  The catacomb Church stills exists today as the True Orthodox Church of Russia.  The Russian Orthodox Church still exists as the “official” Church of Russia but the True Orthodox Christians around the world do not recognize them as Orthodox.  The term “True Orthodox” is used to distinguish those who hold the Orthodox Faith without compromise vs. those who innovate and adapt to ways of the world and to the heresy of Ecumenism.]