The Word Became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us

Just over 2,000 years ago the most amazing event in human history occurred: the God of the universe became incarnate - took on human flesh - and became one of us! In contrast to the many legends of ancient gods of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, this event actually took place in time and space. It is tied to real, historical political figures: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Mat. 1:1) and the reign of "Caesar Augustus... when Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Luke 2:1-2).

I emphasize this because "Without the Incarnation, there is no salvation." If God did not actually come into human history in the form of a human baby born of the Virgin Mary, we cannot be saved from our sinful nature and from death unto eternal life in communion with God. Of course, it is not enough to merely agree with the historical fact of God's Incarnation in Jesus the Messiah: the devils also believe this as a fact, and they tremble in fear of coming judgment. It is also vitally necessary to believe in Him, in the sense of placing our complete trust and hope in Him. But the historical facts are necessary in order for our faith to be anchored in the material reality of His birth, not in a myth or fable. There seems to be a conscious effort in recent decades to link the Christmas Story to the modern myth of Santa Claus with his elves and reindeer, and with Frosty the Snowman, that children are eventually told is just fairy tales. But there was a real Sankt Niklaus and Kris Kringle ("Christkindl" or "Christ Child" in German), it's just that these stories have been greatly distorted into myths.

Luke's Gospel begins with the story of an angel announcing to Zacharias and Elizabeth about John the Baptist's conception, birth, and ministry, also anchored in human history: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness" (Luke 3:1-2). John the Baptist's ministry signaled the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant: he was both the greatest of the Old Testament prophets and the messenger who introduced to his followers Jesus as the Messiah.

The miraculous conception of Jesus the Messiah is recorded later in the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this; for after his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins." Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, And shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;" Which is, being interpreted, "God with us" (Mat. 1:18-23).

Why is the historical fact of the Virgin Birth of Jesus important? Because if Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, He could not be the Son of God, but merely an illegitimate child of a teenage girl who "got in trouble" by some young man, perhaps by a Roman soldier. The Pharisees accused Him of this very thing: "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, God" (John 8:41). Thus we must emphasize the purity and holiness of the Virgin Mary in order to protect the Incarnation of God our Savior.

The Evangelist John addresses this issue indirectly in the same chapter 8, giving us the story of the woman caught in adultery:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her." Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. They, when they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest, even to the last. Jesus was left alone with the woman where she was, in the middle. Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more" (John 8:3-11).

These days some who call themselves Christians will bring up this story of the woman caught in adultery as an excuse to be "caring" and "loving" and "accept diversity," but they ignore Christ's summary of this event: "From now on, sin no more." Certainly, we should be forgiving, but that implies there are sins to be forgiven. Today I was reading in the book of Zechariah, one of the last of the Old Testament's prophets: "Behold, the cover of lead was lifted up, and there was a woman sitting in the midst of the ephah basket. The angel said, 'This is Wickedness;' and he threw her down into the midst of the ephah basket; and he threw the weight of lead on its mouth" (Zech. 5:7-8). This seems to be quite a strange prophecy: what does it mean? The context in previous chapters is the Temple in Jerusalem, the Old Testament equivalent of the Church, and the worship in it.

The Apostle John who wrote the above Gospel, also wrote the following in the book of Revelation: "I have this against you, that you tolerate your woman, Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. She teaches and seduces my servants to commit sexual immorality, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great oppression, unless they repent of her works" (Rev. 2:20-22). And...

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here. I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and those who dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her sexual immorality." He carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored animal, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of sexual immorality of the earth. And on her forehead a name was written, "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev. 17:1-6).

Jude, the brother of James, wrote of similar distortions of the Gospel, as follows:

Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all transmitted to the saints. For there are certain people who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this condemnation: ungodly men, perverting the grace of our God into unbridled lust, and denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you already know this, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who didn't believe. Angels who didn't keep their first domain, but deserted their own dwelling place, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these who have given themselves over to sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire (Jude 1:3-7).

The Greek word for "sexual immorality" is "porneo," from which we have the cognate words "pornography" and "fornication," but it also has wider meanings including adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality - all forms of sexual deviancy. In contrast with these descriptions of sexual immorality that distort the grace of God into unbridled lust, the Apostle John wrote what is clearly a description of the glorified Virgin Mary as a symbol of the Church, the Body of Christ, Who came forth from her womb:

A great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child. She cried out in pain, laboring to give birth. Another sign was seen in heaven. Behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven crowns. His tail drew one-third of the stars of the sky, and threw them to the earth. The dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Her child was caught up to God, and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that there they may nourish her one thousand two hundred sixty days. There was war in heaven. Michael and his angels made war on the dragon. The dragon and his angels made war. They didn't prevail, neither was a place found for him any more in heaven. The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him (Rev. 12:1-9).

Have you ever watched the movie "Gremlins"? It starts with a nice, fuzzy little animal with instructions to keep it away from bright lights and water, and not to feed it after midnight. The teenager who receives this "gift" promptly breaks these rules, and the cute, furry creature quickly spawns into little monsters that multiply into more and more monsters, finally destroying the whole town. There's a saying, "All art is didactic" - the artist, author or screenwriter aims to teach, to communicate a certain message. In this case, it's when the passions are fed and watered, they soon grow out of control and destroy both the individual and society.

All this is to say, "Without kenosis there is no theosis." St. Paul describes the Incarnation as "kenosis" - the Greek word for "self-emptying" as follows: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:5-9). Only if we empty ourselves of our passions and lusts as He did, can we become purified, sanctified and glorified as He is, and "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4).

The Apostle Paul further wrote to his disciple Titus, whom he had installed as bishop of Crete: "For we were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior [Jesus, which means 'Yahweh saves' in Hebrew] and his love toward mankind appeared, not by works of righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy, he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, which he poured out on us richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:3-7). Jesus, God our Savior, has appeared in the flesh! If we have abandoned our various deceitful lusts and pleasures and received baptism, the washing of regeneration, we are justified by His grace, and become inheritors of the divine life!

How does this happen? Again, St. Paul wrote: "We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be partakers of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin" (Rom. 6:4-7). Baptism is becoming united with Christ, sharing His divine nature!

As St. Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that man might become a god." Christ took to Himself our sin-deformed human nature, yet without personally sinning, so that He could confer on us sinful humans His divine nature. Christ's "divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and virtue; by which he has granted to us his exceedingly great and precious promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust" (2 Pet. 1-3-4). The word "partakers" in Greek is "koinos" or "communicants" - receiving into our own bodies the Body and Blood of Christ Himself.

So there you have it: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - the Incarnation of God the Word, Jesus Christ, is the beginning of our salvation. From that very beginning, the Evil One drove King Herod to try to destroy this future King, the hope of all mankind. And throughout history Satan has been trying to deceive the Body of Christ, the Church, by tempting Her to commit all sorts of abominations in the name of "freedom" and "tolerance." These evils must be rejected so that Christ "might present the Church to himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27).

When the Wedding Feast of Christ with His bride, the Church, takes place, will you be a partaker of that glorious event?

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 25 Dec. 2016.)

The Elephant in the Room

In the last two essays we've been considering the question - "Is perfection possible, and if so, how much?" And the answer was - "Just barely!" In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord Jesus Christ said - "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Mat. 5:48) and "Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it" (Mat. 7:13-14). When someone asked Him - "Lord, are they few who are saved?" He said to them, "Strive to enter in by the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter in, and will not be able" (Lk. 13:23-24).

So... what's the elephant in the room? What are the unspoken and likely unconscious assumptions in our minds when we hear such sayings of the Lord? Perhaps we say to ourselves - "Oh, that's really not possible in today's world!" or "No problem, I've got it made!" The former implies that I'm out of luck, there's no way I can live up to it. And the latter implies that I may think too highly of myself, that I'm one of God's very special people. Where do these ideas come from?

As I wrote in the 12 Nov. issue of Hosken-news, Romans 5:12 is the key verse: "Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, in that all sinned." When St. Jerome translated the original Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, this verse became: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (1899 Douay-Rhiems Catholic Bible). Note "in whom" (masculine pronoun) vs. the Greek - "in that" (neuter pronoun).

The neuter pronoun is just one letter in Greek, but either Jerome's knowledge of Greek wasn't that great, or he held a prior belief that it *must* refer to Adam, but in any case, he rendered it as "him," and This One Letter has changed the West's dominant theological system! Based mainly on this verse in the Latin Vulgate, St. Augustine developed his doctrine of original sin and guilt passing on from Adam to all men. And even though most modern Bible translations including the modern Catholic Bible have corrected this translation error, the Western doctrine of original sin and guilt in all of us has remained.

St. Augustine built his doctrine of predestination mainly on this verse. If I'm guilty of Adam's original sin but God's grace is not intended for me, I'm predestined to damnation, the situation is hopeless - there's nothing I can do about it, I'm out of luck, I can never be perfect. But on the other hand, if God's grace is intended for me, I'm delivered from original sin, predestined to be one of God's elect, I've got nothing to worry about: no matter what I do it's OK, I've got my ticket to heaven! What's wrong with this scene?

First and foremost, this doctrine stating that God chooses to predestine the vast majority of mankind to burn in hell for all eternity has become the primary reason for doubters rejecting the whole idea of God: it is the main cause of atheism in the West. Who would want to believe in such a malevolent deity? How many millions of people today have become atheists because of this false dilemma? The flip side is that if I think I'm one of the elect, one of the righteous, then everything I do is righteous: many who call themselves Christians behave worse than unbelievers because of this self-righteous, false notion.

Secondly, because both the damned and the elect are predestined to their eternal fates, they have no choice in the matter, so they are freed of moral responsibility. How can I responsible for my actions if I have no choice but to do evil? How can I responsible for my actions, on the other hand, if I have no choice but to believe and go to heaven? Thus the doctrine of original sin making all mankind guilty, and the follow-up doctrine of predestination actually demolish the idea of sin: nothing is either right or wrong, good or bad, because moral responsibility does not exist. We are merely animals that follow our natural instincts. So these two doctrines are self-contradictory, they collapse upon themselves.

But the teaching of the Eastern Church doesn't suffer from either of these defects: even though original sin has weakened human nature and made us prone to sin, we still have free will and can choose to resist temptation. The many mentions of "perfect" and "perfection" in the Scriptures are not meaningless, they're very meaningful for us. Here are just a few of them:

"Having been made perfect, He [Christ] became to all of those who obey Him the author of eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9).

"Therefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on to perfection -- not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith toward God" (Heb. 6:1).

"For the law appoints men as high priests who have weakness, but the word of the oath which came after the law appoints a Son forever Who has been made perfect" (Heb. 7:28).

"God having provided some better thing concerning us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11:40).

"Therefore, seeing we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb. 12:1-2).

Do you see the pattern emerging here? Christ had the same weakened human nature as we have, He was tempted in every way just as we are, but without yielding to sin. He attained perfection: "having been made perfect." So we are urged to "press on to perfection," "let us run with patience the race."

Life isn't easy, it's a constant battle against the temptations of the lusts of the flesh (sexual sin, gluttony, drugs, alcohol), the lusts of the eyes (greed and coveting), and the pride of life (ego, status). Christ endured to the end, and so can we: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Mat. 24:13).

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 10 Dec. 2016.)

Perfect People: Possible But Improbable

How is it possible that Christ has already made us perfect, as Hebrews 10:12-14 shows here? In Revelation 13:8b we read - "...the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world." The sacrifice of Christ took place in eternity past, because He is One of the pre-eternal Trinity. So Christ the God-Man is both outside of time as God and inside time as man, thus His work of perfecting us has both an eternal and a temporal aspect.

In our last article - "Are Perfect People Possible?" - I quoted "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48) and "Follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). How is it possible that Christians can be perfect, how can we fulfill these commands to be perfect and holy?

St. Paul wrote in Philippians 3:8-16 on striving to become perfect:

"Yes most assuredly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for Whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, becoming conformed to His death; if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on, if it is so that I may take hold of that for which also I was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I don't regard myself as yet having taken hold, but one thing I do. Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

St. Paul wrote that he was not already made perfect (in the human dimensions of space-time), but he was pressing on to take hold of what Christ had already (in eternity) taken hold of: Paul's perfection. This also explains the "predestination/free will" paradox: Christ as eternal God knows all those who are predestined for salvation, perfection, and sanctification; but we mortals are limited to space-time and cannot know the future, therefore we must freely choose to "press on toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

From God's eternal point of view, there is predestination; but from a human point of view, there is free will and moral responsibility. As a Protestant might say, "God is a Calvinist, but we are all Arminians." In Hebrews 12:25 the Apostle Paul wrote - "See that you don't refuse him who speaks. For if they didn't escape when they refused Him Who warned on earth, how much more will we not escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven." Humanly speaking, it is possible for us to turn away from Christ, just as it is possible to turn toward Him and follow Him. Let's look at some examples:

In the Early Church, after Emperor Constantine had legalized Christianity and then made it the official state religion of the Greco-Roman Empire, some Christians saw a weakening of the fervor that Christians had exhibited during times of persecution and martyrdom. So they literally forsook everything and followed Christ. At first, these early monastics led a solitary life. Pachomius the Great, an Egyptian soldier in the Roman Army, was baptized 314 in the year as soon as he completed his military service, and immediately started to practice the ascetic life of self-denial.

Soon he withdrew into the desert under the guidance of a spiritual father, and after ten years the Lord spoke to him, saying that he must form a monastic community. Thus was born the first "cenobitic" (from "koinonia") monastic community, just after Christianity was legalized. The "rule" of St. Pachomius became the model for founding documents of many later monastic communities. St. Pachomius worked miracles, and saw visions of holy Angels, and foresaw the day of his death.

Another early saint was Benedict, born in Italy in the year 480. "When he was fourteen years of age, the saint’s parents sent him to Rome to study. Unsettled by the immorality around him, he decided to devote himself to a different sort of life." He first fled to the desert and became a solitary, but after ten years a group of disciples formed around him, eventually growing to over 3,000 monastics in several monastic communities. He wrote the "Rule of St Benedict" that became the model for most monastic communities in the West. He "was granted by the Lord the gift of foresight and wonderworking. He healed many by his prayers. The monk foretold the day of his death in 547."

These two saints lived during the first millennium of Christianity when Christians in East and West formed one united Church. Tragically, after the Great Schism in A.D. 1054, the Christian faith continued to fracture into the tens of thousands of denominations we have today. Each has a portion of original Christianity - some have a large slice of the pie, others just a tiny sliver. If only they could put together all the pieces of the truth, we could again form one true Church.

But the pursuit of holiness did not completely die out. Seraphim of Sarov, who lived in the 18th century, even as a child was twice miraculously healed from illness, and had visions of angels and of Christ himself. At age 18 he entered the monastery of Sarov. At age 27 he was ordained as a hieromonk (priest-monk) and served the Eucharist every day for a year. Then he withdrew further into the wilderness, where bears, rabbits, wolves, foxes and other wild animals came to his hut to be fed from his hand. He once spent 1,000 days on a rock with his hands lifted up in prayer.

A disciple of his named Motovilov came to him one cloudy day in the winter. When asked the meaning of the Christian life, St. Seraphim said - "It is necessary that the Holy Spirit enter our heart. Everything good that we do, that we do for Christ, is given to us by the Holy Spirit, but prayer most of all, which is always available to us." When Motovilov asked how he could know the Holy Spirit, he answered - "We are both now, my dear fellow, in the Holy Spirit." It was as if Motovilov's eyes had been opened, for he saw that the face of the elder was brighter than the sun.

In his heart, Motovilov felt joy and peace, in his body a warmth as if it were summer, and a fragrance began to spread around them. Motovilov was terrified by the unusual change, but especially by the fact that the face of the starets shone like the sun. But St. Seraphim said to him, "Do not fear, dear fellow. You would not even be able to see me if you yourself were not in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Thank the Lord for His mercy toward us." He went on to explain that this gift was not only for monastics but for all Christians who seek the Holy Spirit with all their hearts.

Another great saint is John of Kronstadt. Born in 19th-century Russia, he lived into the early 20th century. He also had the gifts of healing and foreknowledge. A married priest, he served the Eucharist daily, ministered to the Imperial Family, and foresaw the fall of Russia into atheism a decade after his death. He formed houses for the poor and sick in St. Petersburg, visiting them, praying for them and even giving them the shoes off his feet in the dead of winter. You can get The Aim of the Christian Life by St. Seraphim of Sarov and My Life in Christ by St. John of Kronstadt at our website www.Discover-Original-Christianity.info/literatura.htm.

As St. Seraphim told Motovilov, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the life of sanctification is the aim for all Christians, not just for priests, monks, and nuns. As St. Paul wrote, "to the church of God which is at Corinth; those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Corinthians 1:2). But not all will make the effort, "because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:14). we must make every effort, we must strive for holiness, as St. Peter wrote - "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble," (2 Peter 1:10).

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 26 Nov. 2016.)

Are Perfect People Possible?

We've heard - "Nobody's perfect" so many times, that we finally begin to believe it. We believe that it's impossible for people to be perfect. And when someone says - "you're just perfect!" like in this photo, we think they're just blowing smoke.

But what did Christ teach us? "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). How should we understand this command of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Some translations render the word "perfect" as "mature" in other New Testament texts, but that doesn't make sense here: our heavenly Father isn't merely mature, He's perfect. And that is what we're supposed to strive for, by God's grace. Humanly speaking, without Divine help, perfection is impossible, and perfectionism - striving for perfection by our own efforts - can cause serious psychological problems. But with the Holy Spirit working in us and sanctifying us, making us holy, perfection is possible.

Romans 5:12 is the key verse: "Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, in that all sinned." When St. Jerome translated the original Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, this verse became: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (1899 Douay-Rhiems Catholic Bible). Note "in whom" (masculine pronoun) vs. the Greek - "in that" (neuter pronoun).

The neuter pronoun is just one letter in Greek, but either Jerome's knowledge of Greek wasn't that great, or he held a prior belief that it should refer to Adam, but in any case, he rendered it as "him," and This One Letter has changed the West's whole theological system! Based mainly on this verse in the Latin Vulgate, St. Augustine developed his doctrine of original sin and guilt passing on from Adam to all men. And even though most modern Bible translations including the modern Catholic Bible have corrected this translation error, the Western doctrine of original sin has remained.

Are the universe and mankind essentially good, or inherently evil? This is the so-called liberal vs. conservative argument, but there are actually two sides to the conservative viewpoint. What are they?

Origen, a second-century Bible scholar, wrote: "when he [St. Paul] speaks about sin, because of which death has passed to all men, he attributes the line of human descent, which has succumbed to this death because of sin. The apostle stated most categorically that the death of sin has passed to all men because all have sinned." St. John Chrysostom wrote in the fourth century: "Paul inquires as to how death came into the world and why it prevailed. It came in and prevailed through the sin of one man and continued because all have sinned. Thus once Adam fell, even those who had not eaten of the tree became mortal because of him." But St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century: "Everyone, even little children, have broken God's covenant, not indeed in virtue of any personal action but in virtue of mankind's common origin in that single ancestor in whom all have sinned."

St. Augustine wrote in Latin that without God's grace we are "posse pecare et non posse non pecare" (able to sin and not able not to sin). Only after receiving God's grace to we become in this life "posse pecare et posse non pecare" (able to sin and able to not sin), and in heaven "non posse pecare" (not able to sin). Both Martin Luther and John Calvin refined this doctrine further, into the idea of the predestined salvation of the elect, the predestined damnation of the un-elect, and total depravity - unregenerate mankind is totally depraved and incapable of not sinning, unable to do anything good; thus much of Protestantism has inherited this doctrine of total depravity from Roman Catholicism. You can read more about total depravity here.

But this doctrine of total depravity, the idea that for unregenerate mankind it is totally impossible to do anything that is purely good, that every action is tainted by sin, is not held by Eastern Christianity. Orthodoxy teaches that Adam and Eve's original sin has weakened human nature so that we all tend to sin, and are subject to death because of original sin, but not that we are guilty of Adam's sin and that we are incapable of doing anything good without God's saving grace. The idea that God chose some people to be eternally damned to hell fire is probably the greatest cause of atheism in the West: how could such a god exist?

Moral responsibility and guilt can only exist if one is capable of making a free, conscious choice to do evil. The prophet Ezekiel (ch. 18) wrote that children are not to be condemned for the guilt of their fathers. But if most of mankind is predestined to damnation because of Adam's sin, they have no moral responsibility or guilt because they had no choice, they were predestined before all eternity to go to hell. So this doctrine of our inheriting Adam's sin guilt falls apart.

We very likely know good people who do good works out of the goodness of their hearts. We are all created in God's image, whether we are Christians or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or atheists. And all of us, even atheists, are capable of doing good. Can a person go a minute or an hour or a day without committing any sin? If so, can that person go 48 hours, or 72, or 96 hours without committing any sin? Here's more on Christian perfection.

Even though the image of God in us is distorted, we should know right from wrong and are capable of choosing what is right. This is why Orthodoxy teaches that Mary committed no personal sins: she was capable of doing what is right, and with God's help ("Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you" Luke 1:28) she consistently chose the good. Thus the Eastern Church's teaching has no need for the Roman Catholic doctrine of her immaculate conception because she did not inherit Adam's sin and guilt. But because her human nature was weakened by sin and subject to death, she needed a Savior ("God my Savior" - Luke 1:47).

The Eastern Church teaches synergy, that we are capable of doing good, and are co-laborers together with God: He works in us, but we must work with Him. We are saved by grace unto good works (Eph. 2:9-10). This is not the heresy of Pelagianism, that we are capable by our good works alone to save ourselves. Salvation is the process of being personally transformed into the image and likeness of God, which is called theosis or deification, "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4). A segment of Protestantism also emphasizes mankind's free will to choose: this is called Arminianism. You can read more about it here: Semipelagianism and Arminianism.

The teaching of predestination, based largely on Rom. 5:12, says that because God knows from all eternity who will be saved, Christ's atonement is limited to only the elect. But God loves all mankind, and "is not willing that any should perish" (2 Pet. 3:9). "He [Christ] died for all" (2 Cor. 5:15) Thus we understand that Christ's atonement on the Cross is for all mankind: "If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (2 John 2:1b-2). This is the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement.

St, Peter wrote that we should not conform to our former lusts, "but just as he who called you is holy, you yourselves also be holy in all of your behavior" (1 Pet. 1:15). And St. Paul wrote: "Follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). When we consider these Scripture texts together with our first quotation, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48), we see that perfection or holiness is not only possible, it is what God expects of every Christian.

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 12 Nov. 2016.)

What is the Problem with Usury?

For the course in Christian Ethics that I'm auditing, we were asked to write our thoughts on chapter 7, “That which has been wrung from tears” of the book Usury, the Greek Fathers, and Catholic Social Teaching. It outlines some of the problems associated with usury. In the modern Western world the term “usury” has fallen into disuse, and as the above chapter states, “We are happy to pay 4 percent as long as we can get the holiday pillows that marketing experts tell us we need.”

The card processing companies charge merchants 2% to 3% for debit card purchases and 4% to 6% for credit card purchases. Of course, these fees are added to the purchase price whether a person pays with cash or with a card. Invisible fees such as these drive up prices, but also greatly increase the money supply by the banking system creating “new money” each time a credit card is used, thus driving inflation. Even if one pays off a credit card in full within 30 days, “new money” is added to the money supply.

It also states “people with money to waste consider 'interest' to be a nonissue.” Because most people are motivated by immediate gratification, they ignore such hidden costs and inflation in order to satisfy their craving for the latest fashion, tech toy, or automobile model. But the long-term effects of consumer credit purchases are ballooning consumer credit debt due to compound interest and the devaluation of the U. S. dollar due to inflation.

Retired people who had what seemed like a reasonable amount of savings at age 65 might discover at age 85 that the buying power of those funds, even with accumulated interest, is perhaps one-third to one-fourth of what it was. Inflation destroys the buying power of retirement savings. As long as a person is working, he can hope that his wages will keep up with inflation. But retirees living on a fixed income do not have that hope. In spite of cost-of-living increases, Social Security payments do not keep up with inflation.

Today we consider as “usury” interest rates above what a bank would charge for a 30-year mortgage. Most people are aware that payday loans and overdue credit card charges can quickly multiply the size of loans, but few people understand the effect of compound interest on a 30-year mortgage at a nominal 5% interest rate. In the first six years of such a loan the borrower's payments are actually 74% interest, and the principal is reduced by only 8.6%. The banks and their investors get the lion's share of that money up front, while the dollar is still worth nearly the same as at the outset.

Then the home-”owner” (the holder of the mortgage actually owns the house) often gets a new job that requires moving to another location, so he starts the process over again, buying another house and paying 74% interest to the banks and their investors once again. Thus “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” What is the solution to this dilemma? What is the problem with usury?

The author refers to Ezekiel 18:4-9, which includes usury in the list of sins along with idolatry, adultery, robbery, judging unjustly, and neglecting or despising the poor. That is, usury is a sin. In Romans 13:8 we read, “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” I can remember as a child that my parents took this verse quite literally, and seriously considered whether it was a sin to take out a mortgage to buy a house.

In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Origen wrote, “In many cases, debt is equivalent to sin. Therefore, St. Paul wants us to owe nothing on account of sin and to steer clear of debts of this kind, retaining only the debt which springs from love, which we ought to be repaying every day.” (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)

Debt is to be avoided if at all possible, and in the Old Testament charging interest from fellow Israelites was forbidden, as the author states referring to Deut. 23:19-20. In Deut. 15:1-2 we read, “In the seventh year you must declare a cancellation of debts. This is the nature of the cancellation: Every creditor must remit what he has loaned to another person; he must not force payment from his fellow Israelite, for it is to be recognized as 'the LORD's cancellation of debts,'” clearly implying that a wise lender would not lend money for more than six years.

If we adapt these principles to today, we can say that six years should be the maximum length for loans, and the interest rate should be no more than the rate of inflation. Thus, if a person avoids all consumer debt by only paying cash for everything except housing, and buys a small condominium on a 5% loan, it could be paid off fully in six years with total interest of only 16%.

This would have the effect of lessening the increase of the nation's money supply, thus decreasing the rate of inflation. Then as his family grows, he could buy a somewhat larger home and pay it off the same way in six years. Repeating this again when the older children are approaching their teenage years and need more space, the third home is fully paid for by the time the older children are about to go to college, and the parents can afford to pay cash for their higher education at community colleges, eliminating student debt.

If these ideas were adopted by traditional Christians nationwide, it would greatly reduce the rate of inflation caused by banks issuing “new money” for mortgages and consumer debt. The nation could then focus on lowering the national debt. We as Christians should learn to live in moderation and within our means, shining as lights in a dark world, as a city on a hill for all to see and emulate. Then interest rates would fall because far less “fiat currency” is being created.

The usurious interest collected by banks and their investors would decrease, and they would be forced to find jobs that actually produce goods and services for society instead of living off of other people's labor. The seemingly endless cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer would be broken, the poor and the middle class would escape debt slavery, once again moving up the economic ladder.

I've been developing these ideas for the last several years, and you can find out about them in more detail from my essay “Escaping Debt Slavery.”

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 29 Oct. 2016.)

The First Christians Were Not Like Those Who Came Later

(← click) For the course in Christian Ethics that I'm auditing, we were asked to write our thoughts about a rebuttal to the article mentioned in our last issue of Hosken-News, so here are mine:

My response to “On Wealth and the Bible, The First Christians Were Not Like David Bentley Hart”at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/17950/ by Dylan Pahman should be obvious by the above title. To eloquently bemoan the fact that Christianity has matured over the centuries, as Dr. Hart and Mr. Pahman do, is  to merely belabor the obvious: of course Christian teaching and practice have grown with time and experience. There have been clarifications by the Church Fathers, but there have also been errors and even heresies. The danger lies in going to extremes, which it seems both Hart and Pahman do for the sake of argument.

Pahman introduces his article with the following statement: “Neither the New Testament nor the writings of early Christians support the idea that material wealth is intrinsically evil.” But neither is wealth intrinsically good because acquiring wealth so often leads to the passion of greed or covetousness. The Lord Jesus Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Don't lay up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves don't break through and steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon.” (Mat. 6:19-24)

Christ condemns here the desire for ever more and more earthly treasures, the accumulation of material wealth for its own sake. St. John explains “the evil eye” to be “the lust of the eyes” which is greed or covetousness. And our Lord teaches us here that we can't serve or worship both God and Mammon, material wealth. The desire for ever more wealth is worship of a false god and is incompatible with the worship of the true God.

The Apostle Paul in Eph. 5:2-5 states against covetousness:

“Walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling fragrance. But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be mentioned among you, as becomes saints; nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not appropriate; but rather giving of thanks. Know this for sure, that no sexually immoral person, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God.”

Here St. Paul contrasts living by the law of love against living by the passions of lust and greed. He includes “covetousness” along with sexual immorality as sins that exclude a person from the Kingdom of God. The Apostle even equates covetousness with idolatry, reflecting the incompatibility of worshiping both God and Mammon. So it isn't too great a stretch for Dr. Hart to state that the accumulation of wealth is intrinsically evil. My own experience teaches me it is extremely difficult to relate to wealth altruistically and without any attraction to it or desire to acquire more and more wealth. As Christ said of the rich young ruler: “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the Kingdom of God.”

The web page for Mr. Pahman's article has links to five other well-reasoned articles refuting Dr. Hart's various writings. Another article, “Tradinistas: Angry, Churchy Millennials Who Scorn Freedom and Demand a Guaranteed Income for Breathing” at https://stream.org/tradinistas-angry-churchy-millennials-who-scorn-freedom-and-demand-a-guaranteed-income-for-breathing/ (which I linked to in my Hosken-News Daily at http://www.hosken-news.info/news/article-202.htm), mentions David Bentley Hart: "they quaff a few economically confused essays by writer and poet G. K. Chesterton, activist Dorothy Day, or theologian David Bentley Hart." I don't quite agree that G. K. Chesterton is in the same left-leaning league as Dorothy Day or Dr. Hart, but all are master polemicists whose rich vocabulary at times outpaces and obscures basing their arguments on logic and facts. Both sides, however, tend to go to extremes, one side utterly condemning material possessions as inherently evil, and the other side praising material wealth to the high heavens as the ultimate good.

Mr. Pahman makes the statement, “Early Christian 'communism' (granting that anachronism for the sake of argument) was clearly voluntary in nature and not mandatory. Furthermore, it didn’t work. Acts 6:1-6 tells the story of how the needy among them were not being equally served. So the Apostles ordained the first deacons to manage the distribution of all donations, and we never again hear of the early Christians possessing 'all things in common.'” Sharing material possessions, as I wrote in my earlier essay, was both voluntary and partial, not a total handing over of all their wealth to the Church.

It is not quite an anachronism that Dr. Hart used the word “communism” in his article because the Greek word koinos for “common” is used in Acts chapters 2 and 4, which is the root for both the word “communism,” “community” and “communion.” But the modern connotation of “communism” is Soviet or Chinese Marxist socialism. Actually, Marxist doctrine does not teach that the stage of dialectical development reached in the USSR or China was communism, but only socialism. But even that was achieved by force of mass killings and confiscation of all private property, hardly anything like the early Christian community.

When we were living in the Udmurt Republic of Russia, the heart of its military-industrial complex, my first Udmurt language tutor told me of how her parents barely survived the Bolsheviks' collectivization. They owned a cow – just one cow – so they were considered “kulaks” (“fists”) who were holding tightly onto their private property. The Bolsheviks seized not only their cow but also their house, furniture, clothing – everything. The only item they were allowed to keep other than the clothes on their backs was one blanket wrapped around the elderly and sick grandmother. My tutor's daughter, by the way, was our first convert there and is now a missionary.

But Mr. Pahman also states: “it didn't work.” This point is often overlooked in discussions about the Christian attitude toward material wealth. We can view Acts chapters 2 through 6 as the first steps of the baby Church in learning how to walk. In that sense, these chapters are historical and descriptive, but not normative and prescriptive. Later apostolic writings teach us to share our material goods with those in greater need. I emphasize the possessive pronoun “our” because the Apostles always use these pronouns which imply the right of having personal possessions.

The question then remains: how do we relate to our possessions – do we own them, or do they own us? It is good and right if we own them as stewards to whom the Lord has entrusted a certain number of coins to use for His Kingdom. But it is evil if we either bury or misuse them for selfish purposes, not as a faithful steward: they are “ours” but only as trustees. Christ continued in the Sermon on the Mount by saying in Mat. 6:28-33:

“Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin, yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won't he much more clothe you, you of little faith? Therefore don't be anxious, saying, 'What will we eat?', 'What will we drink?' or, 'With what will we be clothed?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first God's Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Are either Dr. Hart or Mr. Pahman concerned about their future well-being to the extent of “laying up treasures for tomorrow”? Do they have vested retirement accounts? Do they have more raiment than the clothing on their backs? Do they have food stored up in their pantries? I would venture to guess that the answer is “yes” to all these questions. If so, then both of their articles are merely tilting at windmills, much ado about nothing, mere empty intellectual exercises. Let us take seriously the words of the Gospel and put them into practice in our lives before we wax loquacious over them.

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 15 Nov. 2016.)

Are Christians Rabble-Rousers?

The photo on the left is from the online Commonweal magazine subtitled "The First Christians Were Not Like Us" by Dr. David Bentley Hart, a renowned Orthodox theologian. This photo depicting plaster-of-Paris saintly-looking disciples surrounding Jesus that introduced the article aptly illustrates Dr. Hart's disdain for an acculturated, saccharine-sweet version of Christianity.

I have been asked to write a short essay on this article for a seminary course on Christian Ethics that I'm auditing. The assignment is simple: "Do you agree with Dr. Hart's conclusions? Why or why not?" My short answer is: "Yes and no." That's the easy part, now for the hard part. While working on a fresh translation of the New Testament, Dr. Hart began to consider what life was like for the early disciples. He writes, it "caused me to absorb certain conclusions about the world of the early church at a deeper level than I could have anticipated. Most of them I already knew, admittedly, if often as little more than shadows glimpsed through a veil of conventional theological habits of thought...."

As one who has spent many years as editor of a revision the Russian Synodal Bible, I can relate to Dr. Hart's pondering while working with the scriptural texts. Our "conventional theological habits of thought" frame our faith in logical constructs and cultural customs that have developed over the past 2,000 years. Dr. Hart questions the conventional meaning of the word Christian as "someone who is baptized or who adheres to a particular set of religious observances and beliefs," but this is far removed from what the New Testament describes as a Christian:

In the Book of Acts we read: "Therefore those who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4). This verse I adopted as a teenager for my life verse, and it has proved true - I have traveled the world preaching God's Word in four languages. A few chapters later the author Luke picks up the same thread of thought: "They therefore who were scattered abroad by the oppression that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord" (Acts 11:19-21).

The Good News of Jesus Christ was spread across the entire known world not by seminary-educated scholars, but by rude-and-crude former fishermen, publicans, rebels and ex-prostitutes who were "scattered abroad" - driven out of one town after another. The same has happened to me, by the way, being forced out of three different cities in Russia. But the key phrase comes a few verses later, when Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch: "It happened, that for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (Acts 11:26). There the term "Christian" was invented (probably sometime later by Evodius, the second Bishop of Antioch). But the question is: What were they called before they were called Christians?

The answer is obvious in this verse: they were called "disciples." But now, two thousand years later, we have split the two terms, "Christian" and "disciple," into two different realities or stages of spiritual growth. The first stage is "someone who is baptized or who adheres to a particular set of religious observances and beliefs," but does not incorporate those beliefs into his day-to-day life: he attends church and contributes as much as is convenient, and that is the extent of his commitment. The disciple, however, is fully committed to struggle against his carnal nature and strives to know God and do His will every day of the week. He prays, reads the Bible and other spiritual literature on a daily basis, helps the poor, sick and elderly, and confesses his sins and shortcomings regularly.

The problem with this dichotomy is that the New Testament knows nothing of the former kind of "Christian." In the first-century Church and onward, until shortly after Christianity became at first officially tolerated, and then displaced paganism as the official state religion, to be a Christian was to be a disciple, and only a true disciple deserved the derisive epithet of "Christian." But when Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal, it became culturally acceptable and convenient to become a Christian.

If one chose to go full-out for the faith, however, one would become a monk or a nun, or flee to the desert and practice strict asceticism. The discipline of discipleship was not required for "ordinary Christians" who paid their annual dues, attended church services as convenient, and thus were more or less assured of a free pass through the pearly gates -- unless they really messed up and committed the "unpardonable sin" (whatever that might be - it was a matter of speculative theological debate).

Then once in a while we find exceptional believers, saints such as John Chrysostom who penned On Wealth and Poverty, or Basil the Great who gave over his large inheritance to the Church in order to build whole communities for orphans, the poor, the diseased, widows and elderly. Dr. Hart no doubt has in mind these examples of true disciples when he along with the Apostle Paul inveighs against "works of the Law - ritual observances like circumcision or keeping kosher" that have little or no relation to "caring for the orphans and widows in their affliction, and keeping oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:27).

I quite agree with Dr. Hart on his repudiation of the idea that in the Magisterial Reformation and onward in much of Protestantism, "justification by grace" instantly imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account, and thus with this accounting maneuver we are relieved of the necessity to do good works. Dr. Hart lists Romans 2:1–16 and 4:10–12, 1 Corinthians 3:12–15, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Philippians 2:16 as proofs that we will be judged according to our deeds, our works, and not solely by our mental assent to certain theological propositions about Christ's life, death and resurrection that we accept as historically true.

Referring to another article, Dr. Hart wrote "arguing for the essential incompatibility of Christianity and capitalist culture. My basic argument was that a capitalist culture is, of necessity, a secularist culture, no matter how long the quaint customs and intuitions of folk piety may persist among some of its citizens; that secularism simply is capitalism in its full cultural manifestation." On this point and for most of the remaining part of his essay I beg to disagree with him. I see no "necessity" that a free-market economy is intrinsically bound to a secularist culture: it is true and painfully obvious to us as conservative followers of Christ that in many cases modern capitalism promotes secularism and consumerism, but I have lived and served the Lord in socialist countries that are also secular and consumerist-oriented. The carnal nature's desire to acquire - consumerism - and its rebellion against God and rejection of His love is amply evident under socialism, when one looks behind the facade of socialist rhetoric. Our secular Russian acquaintances were fully as acquisitive as their Western capitalist counterparts.

The carnal nature's drive to accumulate wealth for its own sake dates much further back than modern capitalism: the Old and New Testaments witness to this trait of fallen human nature. And yet, the Bible stories of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Boaz, David, Solomon tell approvingly of their material possessions because their hearts remained faithful to the Lord - at least most of the time. These stories also tell of how Abraham doubted God's promise to make him great, how Jacob deceitfully got the upper hand over Laban, and how David and Solomon yielded to fleshly lust, which often led to losing out on God's material blessings.

It is abundantly clear from Scripture that the desire for more and more wealth in itself is evil, but also that the blessing of material and physical well-being is often the result of living righteously and striving to please God in all that we do. God promises to bless not only spiritually but even materially those who honor Him. Our goal should be to love God and do good, and let the chips fall where they may. The normal, expected result of doing good is that good things come in return, but we should not doubt God's goodness when evil is returned for good: that is a result of the fallen cosmos in which we live, it is not from God.

Dr. Hart points out Christ's extreme "commands to become as perfect as God in his heaven and to live as insouciantly as lilies in their field; condemnations of a roving eye as equivalent to adultery and of evil thoughts toward another as equivalent to murder; injunctions to sell all one’s possessions and to give the proceeds to the poor, and demands that one hate one’s parents for the Kingdom’s sake and leave the dead to bury the dead." The true disciple, Christ's rabble, in his struggle against the prince of this world and his minions will strive to live out these teachings of Christ. By our counter-cultural lifestyle we are thus rabble-rousers: the secular world, both socialist and capitalist, perceives this lifestyle as a threat to a society that accepts and even encourages human imperfections such as lust, adultery, "greed is good," clannish "diversity" behavior and selfishness.

Yes, it is very difficult - but not impossible as Dr. Hart implies - for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. St. Luke writes of Christ's encounter with the rich young ruler: "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God" (Luke 18:24-25). Matthew's Gospel states that the rich can only "with difficulty" enter the Kingdom (Mat. 19:23). Then the disciples asked, "Who then can be saved?" and Jesus replied, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (vv. 25-26). I have personally experienced earning in the upper 10% income bracket, and know the temptation of dwelling upon how much I was earning every minute, every second. It was very difficult to break free from that mindset. Salvation merely by human effort, by doing good works or giving one's wealth for the poor, is impossible; but with God's grace transforming our hearts and motives, it is possible to do good works and give up our wealth for the sake of the Kingdom.

Another of Dr. Hart's misreading of Scripture is his statement: "the first converts in Jerusalem after the resurrection, as the price of becoming Christians, sold all their property and possessions and distributed the proceeds to those in need, and then fed themselves by sharing their resources in common meals (Acts 2:43–46). " The verb "sold" is in the Greek tense of a continuing action, not a completed action, and the text does not have the word "all" in it. As a Greek scholar, Dr. Hart should have noticed this. The conclusion that we must draw from this text (and others) is that the early Christians practiced generosity as they sold some of what they owned as needs arose, not everything all at once.

We see this later with Barnabas who "having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet" (Acts 4:37). This passage does not state that "Barnabas, on becoming a Christian, sold his field" as Dr. Hart writes, implying that a condition of becoming a Christian is to sell all of one's possessions and give all the proceeds to the Church. And the fatal error of Ananias and Sapphira was not that they refused to turn over all their possessions to the Church, but that they lied about what they gave, as Peter said: "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While you kept it, didn't it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn't it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart? You haven't lied to men, but to God" (Acts 5:3-4). Notice that St. Peter affirmed the Christian's right of ownership of private property: "While you kept it, didn't it remain your own?"

It is a misuse of the word "communism" as currently understood to describe the early Christians' actions as a form of communism. Apparently Dr. Hart has lived all his life in the ivory tower of academia and views communism through the rose-colored glasses of this Leftist-leaning intellectual elite milieu. I have personally witnessed the devastation of society, the economy and the human person by modern communism. It would be much better to use the current expressions "a sharing economy" or "cooperative living" than to ascribe the early Christian lifestyle to communism. Or is Dr. Hart an admirer of "Liberation Theology" that has its roots more in modern Marxism than in early Christianity? Marxism is a philosophy of forced redistribution, but Christianity upholds ownership of private property as stewardship from God, and teaches the voluntary sharing of one's own possessions with those in need.

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 01 Oct. 2016.)

The Freedom of Morality

 
In my essay TRUE FREEDOM OR "LIBERATION"? of 17 April this year, I attempted to explain the difference between the true, genuine spiritual freedom that we have in Christ, and the false "liberation" that the secular world offers.

I've just begun reading a book entitled The Freedom of Morality, by Christos Yannaras. He expounds - in very deep, thick prose - on the seeming paradox of freedom that is found in morality of the heart, versus the bondage found in a legalistic view of morality. There is even the mystery of "holy fools" who would identify themselves with harlots and drunkards in order to rebuke the hypocritical self-righteousness of those practicing a legalistic morality.

As stated in the pithy quote by James Anthony Froude, shown on the right, genuine morality is only possible when people are free; true morality is impossible when a person is not free to choose or reject it. This is why freedom of religious expression is so important: a totalitarian, authoritarian approach to religion in which every person in a society is forced to adhere to one religion causes most people to have only a superficial adherence to that religion.

The same holds true with secular or anti-religious worldviews: the majority of people will merely "go along to get along," and as soon as that totalitarian worldview crumbles away the people happily begin to enjoy real freedom. This is what we witnessed in August of 1991 in Russia after the failed coup against Gorbachiov. Churches were filled with people and Bibles were for sale in street kiosks. But alas, with freedom to believe and to choose morality, along came pornography and freedom to choose immorality.

Jesus Christ often experienced confrontations with the Pharisees who practiced only a superficial, legalistic morality. They were judgmental and strict, they upheld the letter of the Old Testament Law. In chapter 8 of John's Gospel, they brought Him a woman, confronting Jesus: "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the Law, commanded that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" (v. 5). Jesus bent down and simply wrote something in the dust - we don't know what He wrote, perhaps He traced out all of the Ten Commandments, and the Pharisees knew they hadn't kept all of them perfectly.

Then He said, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" (v. 7). They all began to wander away, one by one, because they were convicted in their conscience. "He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more'" (vv. 10-11).

Thus our Lord Jesus Christ perfectly melded together justice and mercy: He did not condemn her, but neither did He condone her actions. He didn't say, "Go and sin some more!" - excusing away her actions as not really bad or sinful. Instead, he granted her forgiveness and freedom from her bondage to sin: "Go and sin no more!" As St. Paul wrote later, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2).

Further in John chapter 8, the confrontations with the Pharisees continued: "You bear witness of Yourself: Your witness is not true" (v. 13). This actually is distorting the Law of Moses, which required at least two witnesses for something to be proved before a judge. But having just oneself as witness doesn't necessarily disprove a claim.

Then Christ hammered home His point: "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free'" vv. 31-32). Freedom comes from abiding in Christ, the Living Word of God, being His follower, and thus knowing the truth experientally (not merely rationally), because we know by experience Him Who is the Truth. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed" (v. 36).

Many modern Evangelicals take the phrase "If you abide in My word" to mean reading, studying and meditating on the Bible. But if Jesus had said - "If you abide in the Bible," His disciples would have thought - "What on earth is the Bible?" - because the New Testament canon didn't exist until about 350 years later, and mass-printed Bibles came into existence 1500 years later with Gutenberg's invention of the printing press. What Jesus had in mind was to abide in Him: "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me" (John 15:4).

And Christ's phrase "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" does not refer to some abstract theological or academic knowledge of truth. That very phrase is inscribed over the entrance to the University of Colorado library, where I studied; but it took the phrase out of context and distorted it. As we see from the correct meaning of "If you abide in My word", so also does the phrase "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" refer to Christ Himself, as He says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me" (John 14:6). We must abide in Him, because He Himself is the truth that brings freedom from legalistic morality to the true morality of the Spirit.

Some people have the idea that freedom in Christ is freedom from any morality at all. They think that Christ's new, great commandment of love overrides the O.T. law. But He says a little bit later - "If you love Me, keep My commandments.... He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.... If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word" (John 14:15, 21 and 23). So there is no contradiction between practicing love and keeping the commandments. The freedom to be able to love unselfishly also enables us to freely observe morality. This is "The Freedom of Morality"!

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 17 Sep. 2016.)

Incremental Socialism: the Frog in the Kettle

For a decade already (see our 18 Dec. 2006 and 17 Apr. 2016 issues), we've used this metaphor and image to remind our readers of how depriving people of their religious freedom works. Nowadays it very likely does not come on suddenly, by throwing people into a bonfire like in the Early Church times of Christian persecution. Rather, it is brought on incrementally, by gradually increasing the "temperature" - the public pressure against free expression of our Christian faith. Some will openly rail against traditional Christians as "those people who cling to their Bibles and their guns" and "right-wing religious fundamentalists" who are lumped together with "fundamentalist Islamist terrorists" as we see in the "anti-extremism" laws in the former USSR. These kinds of laws are coming in the West too, as a result of recent terrorist attacks here.

But more often, the Leftist "Liberal" press will publicize statements by politicians who tell us that "freedom of religion" is merely the right to attend whatever church you want on Sunday morning, as long as the pastor doesn't preach anything that's not "politically correct" - see A Pastor Fights Against Government Restrictions on Political Sermons. These politicians will say you can worship as you choose, but just "Don't force your beliefs on others" - see Doctors Sue Administration for Forcing Them to Perform Gender Transition Procedures and Congress Must Protect Religious Liberty Now More than Ever.

Before my wife and I moved to Russia, we led a non-profit organization called Christian Action with a newsletter that was quite similar to Hosken-News. One of my articles was entitled "Gradualism" that explained how Socialism in the West is being introduced gradually, incrementally, by one small decree or law or regulation or executive order after another. At that time, 25 years ago, we already had Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Department of Education, and the infamous "Roe versus Wade" U.S. Supreme Court decision. One of our Christian Action board members denied that this "gradualism" was actually happening, and he was so upset that he resigned from the board. Let's "fast-forward" to the present: now we have "No Child Left Behind" socialist education, LGBTQ rights even in the military, legalized "Gay Marriage" sodomy, and government-funded abortions mandated by the "Affordable Care Act" - illegal under the Hyde Amendment, but the current Leftist "Liberal" platform proposes the elimination of that "inconvenient" Hyde Amendment. Where did all this come from?

It didn't "just happen" accidentally; rather, it came about intentionally - its leaders use the term "incrementally." They are Marxist theorists from the "Institut für Sozialforschung" (Institute for Social Research), commonly called "the Frankfurt School" that was founded in 1923 by Felix Weil, a Marxist and the son of a wealthy grain dealer. Weil wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the practical problems of implementing socialism. Weil and his followers were confounded that attempts at communist revolutions in Western Europe after WWI had failed. Why did the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution succeed in Russia, an economically backward country, but fail in industrially developed countries in the West, as Marx had predicted?

They finally realized it was because the war had almost completely destroyed Russia's social fabric, so that Lenin could rouse up the returning peasant-soldiers with false promises of "Land, Peace and Bread" if they would join his revolutionary band. So these disillusioned Marxists set about to find ways to deliberately cause the social fabric in the West to unravel by incrementally demolishing the foundations of traditional Christian culture in the West. Felix Weil gathered other Marxist theorists, including German communists, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists. Some were still so committed to formal old-school Marxism that they couldn't bear to leave the Communist Party, but most renounced what they saw as failed Marxist theory, and set about to revise it.

The psychologists included Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich: "In joining what was predominantly a 'Hegelian-materialist' current of Marxists, these psychologists gave the development of Marxist theory an entirely new direction, which has left its imprint on social theory ever since. Erich Fromm ...dealt with psychological aspects of social control, delusion and conformity and became one of the founders of 'socialist humanism'. Wilhelm Reich developed his own doctrine of sexual liberalism as an antidote to political conformism and social psychosis." (source: The Frankfurt School and “Critical Theory.”) See also Critical Theory and the Cloward-Piven Strategy and The Origins of Political Correctness: Cultural Marxism.

In 1933, with the rise of Adolph Hitler to power, the Frankfurt School realized the Nazi's threat to its very existence: by 1935 they moved to Columbia University in New York City, and later established a branch in the mass entertainment industry - Hollywood - in Los Angeles, California. Now you can understand why the movies began playing up sexual liberation in the 1940s and onward, up to the present. The infiltration of Marxist philosophy into psychology is reflected in many psychologists counselling their patients to be "liberated" from conventional sexual ethics by participating in adultery and fornication (- they of course don't use those "retrograde" terms).

As I wrote in the last issue of Hosken-News, "conservative, traditional Christians who know their stuff see the state's grasping for power in all areas of public life as a form of pagan idolatry, and old-fashioned pagan idolatry often included sexual immorality (temple prostitution) with its religious ceremonies to lure people in and then entrap them by sexual addiction." This explains the drive for explicit sex education starting in grade school, continuing through high school, including positive reinforcement of the LGBTQ agenda, the use of birth control and having abortions without parental knowledge or consent.

This is why I have expanded the scope of Hosken-News to include the deliberate, organized efforts of Cultural Marxists to incrementally bring about a Socialist Revolution here in the United States. One of the recent candidates for U.S. President was campaigning on an explicit platform of Socialism, and when he dropped out of the race, he insisted that parts of his platform be included in his party's official platform.

Socialism is based on "materialism. It ranges from complete atheism that only admits to what we can see, feel and measure as having real existence, to a vague deism - 'You can believe whatever you want, maybe there's a god who started things up and then walked away, maybe Jesus existed or maybe he didn't, maybe he rose from the dead (if he even existed) or maybe not, and maybe other religions are just as valid, moral and peace-loving, so we should just play nice and get along with each other'" - as I wrote in our last issue.

It is high time for traditional, conservative Christians to stand up and speak out for religious freedom and "the free expression thereof" - as the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution states. Concerning freedom: "Use it or lose it!" King David wrote in the Psalms, "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" He wasn't a limp-wristed whiner; rather, he was a military stategist, and he knew what to do: rebuild the foundations! That begins with carting away the rubble of the Cultural Marxists!

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 28 Aug. 2016.)

Socialism, Crony- and Cartel-Captitalism

Most people today don't like to call Hitler's Nazi Germany "Socialist," but the word "Nazi" is actually the German abbreviation of "National Socialist." The essence of Crony-Capitalism is the merger of state and corporate power – the definition of Fascism. In Nazi Germany it was called Cartel-Captitalism, where the heads of large corporations weren't officially part of Hitler's Nazi government, but they belonged to the Nazi Party, and these cartel bosses were pledged and dedicated to support the Nazis' goals. If one of these wealthy Cartel-Captitalists decided to oppose the system, he would be immediately "eliminated" - as Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Boris Berezovsky experienced in Russia.

What we have in Russia today is not "democracy," but rather Cartel-Captitalism or state-capitalism. In the U.S. and Western Europe today we have a somewhat softer, less distinguishable form of Socialism called Crony-Capitalism in which certain wealthy corporate leaders support "Progressive" (Leftist, Socialist) causes in exchange for huge government contracts and favors. The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are upset about corporations that have way too much power, and the "Tea Party" people are upset about government that has way too much power, but neither side seems to understand the reality that large corporations lobby for the government to have more power and in return the government enacts laws and regulations favorable to those same large corporations. This is Crony-Capitalism.

None of these are true free-market economies in which freedom of religious expression and small businesses can thrive. Very often, Socialism, Crony- and Cartel-Captitalism exalt the state to an absolute authority over most or all areas of public life. They attempt to control the news media, education, religion, health care, local police and the military. Frequently, the revolutions don't come by a sudden, violent overthrow of the existing order, but rather by an incremental, stealthy takeover of the news media, education, religion, health care, local police and the military by weeding out people who oppose the "party line" and installing compliant people who will say and do anything for a paycheck or for a little piece of power and prestige.

Most secularized, gullible Americans have no problem with "Progressive" politics and social policies. They're willing to "just go with the flow" and enjoy the immediate gratification of "free sex and welfare checks." But conservative, traditional Christians who know their stuff see the state's grasping for power in all areas of public life as a form of pagan idolatry, and old-fashioned pagan idolatry often included sexual immorality (temple prostitution) with its religious ceremonies to lure people in and then entrap them by sexual addiction.

The people most often entrapped by these enticements are the poor who fall for the false promises of something for nothing: see The Abandonment of Traditional Values Has Hurt the Black Community. But eventually, when the welfare system becomes so bloated that the government can no longer support it, the state turns to eliminating these "excess categories" - see Planned Parenthood Was Created to 'Exterminate Blacks' and 'It's Working' and When Assisted Suicide Becomes Coercive. When the money runs out, so do their lives.

The essential element in Socialism, Crony- and Cartel-Capitalism is materialism. It ranges from complete atheism that only admits to what we can see, feel and measure as having real existence, to a vague deism - "You can believe whatever you want, maybe there's a god who started things up and then walked away, maybe Jesus existed or maybe he didn't, maybe he rose from the dead (if he even existed) or maybe not, and maybe other religions are just as valid, moral and peace-loving, so we should just play nice and get along with each other." And because materialism denies God as the foundation of all being and life, it is a philosophy of death. That is why it promotes abortion and euthanasia.

In contrast, traditional Christians believe with all their heart that God exists as Trinity before all eternity, that through Christ He created the universe and all things in it, that He interpenetrates the entire material universe and His Divine law is the DNA of the universe that holds it all together. We believe that Christ is fully God and fully man, born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, that He lived a virtuous and sinless life, died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day, and that He is coming again to judge the living and the dead. We believe that the purpose of our earthly life is to strive toward holiness and partaking of the Divine nature, to be fully united with Christ in His glory, and to share His glory with others.

And those gullible people who had bought into the Socialist lies and even participated in some of the rallies and protest marches, decrying traditional values and "the system" may sooner or later find out that they've been used, they were lured into becoming what Lenin called "useful idiots" who just swelled up the size of the crowds. They still retained from their post-Christian culture a sense of "justice" and "truth," but when the revolution finds out they are no longer useful, they too can be eliminated - see "The Revolution Devours Its Own Children".

You may respond, "Aren't you being a bit too melodramatic?" To that, I must reply that I've been there, done that. I've seen the Iron Curtain up close, living next to it for over a year while in the U.S. Army. Two of my fellow-soldiers were shot at by East German border guards. I felt the very real, tangible threat of Red Army attack while serving in the Army's military intelligence HQ during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Soviet tanks and artillery were lined up on the border, ready to roll.

Then I spent my years in university studying Russian and Soviet history, political science and Russian language: I read more Marx and Lenin than most Russians ever read in their lifetimes. I've studied just about all the Socialist revolutions and attempted revolutions throughout history, and I understand how they're pulled off. Next, my wife and I spent 20 years in missionary work in Central and Eastern Europe, including 17 years in Russia during and after the dissolution of the USSR.

What can we do about this current situation? We must do more than simply wring our hands in despair and complain about how terrible it is. Like the prophet Nenemiah, we must rebuild the broken-down foundations and city walls, we must "Restore Our Broken Society." It starts with becoming informed, then it continues by getting involved in spreading the message. And it finishes by rebuilding true Christian community.

(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 13 Aug. 2016.)