It happened in the Old Testament, after the fall of Adam and Eve and God’s destruction of mankind in the flood at the time of Noah, that the inhabitants of Babel set out to construct a tower that would reach the heavens.[1] This endeavor, which through modern eyes might be thought an inspiring example of innovation, ambition, and human industriousness, was, as is clearly perceptible upon a close reading of the Scriptural text, instead marked by a profoundly materialistic, earthly mode of life and distinctly blameworthy aspirations. Indeed, in accordance with squarely human, rather than godly, wisdom, the people of Babel sought to build the Tower in order to ascend to the place of God apart from Him[2] — as Eve had herself done in the Garden —, to pridefully and self-seekingly establish worldly renown for themselves and their city (“let us make a name for ourselves”[3]), to undermine God’s command for humanity to populate the earth (“lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth”[4]), to secure the Tower’s builders from another destructive flood that might one day come upon them as a result of their sinful dispositions,[5] and ultimately to fortify them against God in order to empower them to persist in their desired sinfulness without fear of His wrath or any need for repentance.[6]
To thwart this impious attempt, God “came down to see the city and the tower” — the unmistakable physical indicators of a humanity that had become earthly in mind, heart, and will, turned entirely to human wisdom at the expense of discerning and abiding in accordance with God’s will and purpose, and diverted its gaze away from God and the things of God so as to set its mind on the things of the world[7] — “which the children of men,” and no longer the children of God, “had built.”[8] And so, to prevent the people from reaching the heavens by their own means — for humanity could not reach God of its own accord — God confused the tongues of the people of Babel such that they began to communicate in different languages. And so, no longer being able to understand one another, they abandoned their quest and dispersed throughout the earth, the confusion of their tongues abolishing the unity that once enabled their cause while compelling them to actualize the command of God to populate the earth.
In the New Testament, our Lord Jesus Christ calls all people to Himself, and, in stretching out His arms on the Cross, gathers all to Himself.[9] Further, with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the believers on the day of Pentecost,[10] the disunity and dispersion that occurred in Babel is undone[11] — a testament to the unity of the Church in Christ by and through the work of the Holy Spirit, and the resulting ability of humanity to now reach the heavens through Christ, who is Himself the Tower by Whom we are now able to enjoy what the inhabitants of Babel foolishly hoped to independently accomplish. At Pentecost, the Spirit empowers the disciples to utilize the many languages of the world, which once caused division and separation in Babel, to gather again humanity to the Lord, in order to speak once more the same spiritual language of sound belief in and abidance with the only true God. At Pentecost, the Spirit imparts upon the Church tongues as a gift rather than a curse, to be used in accordance with the will of God for the purpose of the edification of the Church.[12] As St. Cyril of Jerusalem wisely discerned:
“The multitude of the hearers was confounded — it was a second confusion, instead of that first evil one at [Babel]. For in that confusion of tongues there was division of purpose, because their thought was at enmity with God; but here minds were restored and united, because the object of interest was godly. The means of falling were the means of recovery.”[13]
Beginning at Pentecost, and continuing on in the Church throughout human history, God offers humanity the opportunity to enjoy in Christ “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”[14] — with God, oneself, others, and all of creation — regardless of age, race, nationality, social status, human language, or any other distinguishing characteristic. In the Church, the believers are united together in the one Body of Christ by the Spirit, through death and resurrection with Him in baptism, receiving and being sealed by His Spirit in chrismation, and partaking together in His body and blood at the one Eucharistic table. In the Church, and so as to properly be called Christians, they are called to, and must, submit to and know His word, believe and abide by His teaching (i.e. sound doctrine), emulate His example, seek to discern and abide by His will, have a living, personal relationship with Him, maintain a pious life marked by robust personal discipleship, repentance, and virtuosity, participate wholeheartedly and with intentionality and understanding in the liturgical, sacramental life, and, importantly, submit to and uphold at all times and in every age, with humility and steadfast obedience, the system of teaching, governance, and pastoral care delivered by the Head of the one Body, that is, Christ, preached and implemented by the Apostles, and preserved and practiced by the Fathers.
Teaching in the New Testament Scriptures
In the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, and throughout the Church’s history, indispensable safeguards were delivered and consistently upheld in order to ensure the continued purity and propagation of unblemished Christian teaching, spirit, and life in the Church, and to prevent the Church from suffering the disunity, confusion, and disharmony that characterize deviation from God’s will and purpose, whether by each individual member of the flock or the community of believers collectively. These safeguards included, most significantly, an untainted, legal, and traceable Apostolic Succession, a robust Apostolic Tradition — including the universally accepted canon of the Scriptures, the Rule of Faith and sound doctrine in every respect, liturgical practice and tradition, and the Patristic witness —, and a system of ecclesial governance founded upon sound discipleship and authoritative Canon Law. In this original model of ecclesial operations, teaching represented a matter of central concern, being accorded specific consideration as perhaps the most consequential of the Church’s activities. When practiced properly, it carried most especially the potential of protecting the sheep while fortifying the pasture against the ever-present onslaughts of the enemies of Truth. On the other hand, if laxity in quality control or deviation in practice or understanding succeeded to afflict and manipulate ecclesial life and administration in this area most especially, the damage to the Church was, and would be, quite severe.
In teaching, as well as more generally in pastoral care and all other matters of ecclesial import, the example and teaching of the Lord, as received, lived, and delivered by His Apostles and the Fathers who shepherded the Church after them, was and invariably must continue to be accorded the most deference. It is the Lord, after all, who is the Teacher and Good Shepherd, and who is therefore the perfect archetype of the Christian teacher and shepherd. In studying Christ’s example and method in teaching and shepherding, the faithful disciple finds that His ministry was characterized by doing before teaching[15] — a manner of life and behavior that came before, and witnessed to, His words and teaching. He taught His disciples to pray after He prayed. He taught His disciples to learn from Him because He is “gentle and lowly in heart.”[16] And in summing up this core tenet, our Lord instructs those who hear Him: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”[17] It is perhaps for this reason that, in her Lectionary system — the framework of liturgical readings — the Coptic Orthodox Church highlights and reflects the same principle, presenting a concise account of the work of Christ in the Sunday readings of the month of Ⲡⲁⲟⲡⲓ (“Babah”) — the second month of the Church’s liturgical year — immediately before she presents an overview of His teaching in the Sunday readings of the following month, Ϩⲁⲑⲱⲣ (“Hatour”).
Recognizing the centrality and consequentiality of the ministry of teaching in the Church, and its inextricable connection with both piety of life and soundness in shepherding the flock, our fathers the Apostles, in obedience to the Divine Commission that they “go, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you,”[18] dealt with and spoke and wrote about this important ecclesial function with the utmost seriousness and concern. Thus, when faced with pressing social concerns among the believers, they decisively and wisely discerned that they could not in good conscience leave the ministry of teaching that had been entrusted to them by Christ in order to “serve tables,” and so ordained seven deacons to carry out this ministry in the Church, having first ensured that they were “men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.”[19]
Further, St. Paul, in writing to his disciple Timothy, specifically directs that the presbyters “that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”[20] And in delineating for Timothy the qualities he must consider when selecting bishops to shepherd the flock of Christ, he emphasizes moral character, doctrinal fitness, and qualification in teaching, directing that a bishop “must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach . . . Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”[21] Moreover, he charges Timothy strongly: “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”[22] And finally, to sum up the unenviable seriousness and grave responsibility of the task of teaching in the Church, St. James directs the believers: “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment . . . Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.”[23]
The Apostles thus uncompromisingly considered with painstaking care the function of teaching in the Church, according the greatest attention to ensuring that those entrusted with that task — in the Apostolic period, the apostles and bishops and those among the presbyters who were entrusted by them to teach — were well prepared and appropriately qualified in every respect to undertake it in a manner that edifies the Church and does not compromise their own salvation and the wellbeing of the flock, instead of appointing to the episcopacy or any other position of teaching in the Church those who, being untested, unfit to teach, compromised in doctrine, or impious in manner of life, would severely undermine the integrity of the Church while endangering their own salvation and that of the flock. Thus, St. Paul succinctly advises Timothy: “Do not lay hands on anyone hastily.”[24]
Besides such prophylactic means, the Apostles also recognized and warned their disciples and those they had ordained to the episcopacy and presbytery regarding common pitfalls, threats, and dangers they would inevitably face in the ministry of Christ, and advised them regarding how to diagnose, overcome, and save themselves and the Church from these. Thus, St. Paul exhorts Timothy that he must withdraw himself from anyone whose teaching contradicted what Timothy had received, and who did “not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness.”[25] Such a person, St. Paul says to Timothy, is “proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.”[26] He also instructs Timothy to “shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness,”[27] and to “avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.”[28] He similarly advises Titus: “avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”[29]
In the same spirit, he says most movingly to the elders of the Church in Ephesus:
“You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you [bishops], to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”[30]
St. John the beloved, the disciple of love, who, in his last days, is said to have only repeated the words “love one another,” in his own inspired writings similarly advises the churches to whom he writes, and all who read his letters: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.”[31]
And because the dangers to the flock are not only doctrinal, but also ethical, the biblical teaching similarly instructs the believers, whether clergy or laity, to avoid those who lead immoral, sinful lives. St. Paul therefore writes to the Corinthians:
“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person . . . put away from yourselves the evil person.”[32]
He likewise says to the Thessalonians: “if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.”[33] Further, to Titus he says: “Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”[34]
Importantly with respect to the foregoing, the Apostles did not only instruct their disciples and those they ordained to avoid those whose doctrine and piety was not in accordance with the teaching and spirit of Christ, and to excommunicate them when appropriate, after following the requisite procedure, but also did so themselves. St. Paul, for instance, writes to Timothy that some have rejected “faith and a good conscience,” and have therefore suffered shipwreck concerning the faith, among whom were Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom St. Paul himself had “delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”[35] And perhaps less well known but equally powerful is the testimony regarding St. John the Evangelist, who, upon entering the public baths in Ephesus and finding there Cerinthus, a known Gnostic heretic, fled without bathing while exclaiming: “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”[36] And St. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna and disciple of St. John, having learned this uncompromising doctrinal concern from his teacher, likewise strongly denounces Marcion, another famous Gnostic, as “the first-born of Satan.”[37]
Finally, St. Paul warns Timothy, and the Church generally: “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”[38]
And in order to encourage their disciples, whether fellow Apostles, bishops, or presbyters, regarding the great responsibility of teaching and shepherding the flock of Christ to which they had been called and ordained, the inspired writers took great care to encourage and embolden these ministers in the service with which they had been entrusted. Thus, St. Paul implores Timothy to “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,” and to “commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” the things that Timothy had heard from St. Paul “among many witnesses.”[39] He also tells him to “[b]e diligent to present [himself] approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,”[40] and to “be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”[41] And in many other ways, the Apostles, in imitation of the Lord, equipped those who, after being properly discipled, receiving the doctrine and spirit of Christ, and being well examined, and with due regard to the diversity of gifts in the service of the Church, were entrusted with teaching and shepherding the Church of God, with the requisite guidance, instruction, and encouragement to undertake and succeed in their respective ministries, by the grace and power of God.
Necessarily framing the above, and any biblically sound comprehension of teaching as it is understood within the Christian framework, is the New Testament emphasis on teaching as one of many gifts of the Holy Spirit allocated to members of the Church as He wills for the benefit of the Church and the glory of God. Thus, St. Paul writes to the Ephesians:
“But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift . . . He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ — from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”[42]
In the same manner he writes to the Corinthians:
“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant . . . There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills . . . God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.”[43]
To the Romans, he repeats the same teaching:
“For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.”[44]
And lest anyone contend that this was a “Pauline” teaching constrained to the culture and time in which it was written, rather than a generally-applicable Christian teaching, as though the words of St. Paul, like those of the remaining inspired writers, were not breathed by God, see St. Peter in his own letters echoing the very same teaching: “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.”[45]
Teaching was thus considered by the Apostles both a matter of qualification and a gift of the Holy Spirit, imparted by God as He wills and on whom He wills, with absolute impartiality, for the benefit of the flock of Christ and not for the sake of any selfish end or ambitious motive or due to any consideration of status or appearance. So St. Paul exhorts Timothy to “observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality,”[46] for “there is no partiality with God.”[47] Indeed, for this reason, godly wisdom dictates that all things in the Church be done in accordance with the system and philosophy delivered by Christ, and not in accordance with personal opinion or partiality secondary to popular or private preference, outward appearances, or social motives.[48]
For this reason, the Apostles and all faithful teachers in the Church since their time consistently maintained always in their hearts and before their eyes the teaching of the Lord that He is the ultimate Teacher,[49] and that all who teach or serve in any other capacity in the Church are but servants entrusted by Him to His ministry:
“Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.”[50]
Teaching in the Early Church
In faithful submission to the example and teaching of Christ and the system delivered by Him to the Apostles, and through their faithfulness, to the Church, the Fathers who were entrusted with shepherding the flock of Christ in the first centuries of Christianity upheld what they had received in all respects, whether in teaching, or discipleship, or ecclesial governance, or dealing with novel questions and concerns. Not only this, but they also did so with wholehearted conviction and courage, taking great pride and comfort in knowing that they had done so, and thus were fulfilling their ministry in a manner acceptable to God and in accordance with His will.
St. Irenaeus, for instance, a personal disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna and ultimately bishop of Lyons in the second century, emphasizes in his writing, in dealing with the Gnostic heresy, that legality of ordination and doctrinal and spiritual soundness of discipleship are necessary prerequisites to legitimacy of teaching, such that the churches whose faith would be considered sound, in contrast to those so-called Christian groups whose faith was heretical, are only those that maintain traceable, legal Apostolic Succession in their clerical ranks as well as adherence, without innovation, to the Apostolic Tradition that was once for all delivered by Christ and preached by the Apostles.[51] To Irenaeus, the heretics and schismatic sects were illegitimate and worthy of outright rejection precisely because they had departed from the pure teaching of Christ and the model of ecclesial administration delivered by Him.[52]
Later, in the third century, Origen of Alexandria, echoing the same teaching, writes:
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”[53]
Soon thereafter, in the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the theologian, proudly declares: “My sheep hear my voice, which I have heard from the oracles of God, which I have been taught by the Holy Fathers, which I have taught alike on all occasions, not conforming myself to the fortune, and which I will never cease to teach; in which I was born, and in which I will depart.”[54]
St. Athanasius also teaches: “What the apostles received, they passed on without change, so that the doctrine of the mysteries (the sacraments) and Christ would remain correct. The divine Word — the Son of God — wants us to be their (the apostles’) disciples. It is appropriate for them to be our teachers, and it is necessary for us to submit to their teaching alone. Only from them and those who have faithfully taught their doctrine do we get, as Paul writes, faithful words, worthy of full acceptance.”[55] And in writing to Serapion, bishop of Thmuis, he says: “But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.”[56]
St. John Chrysostom too speaks strongly regarding those who teach, and seek the clerical ranks that are specifically entrusted with preserving and delivering the teaching, in the Church: “if anyone should cling to a position for which he is not fit, he deprives himself of all pardon and provokes God‘s anger the more by adding a second and more serious offense,”[57] and again “if even before [one] has proved himself as a disciple he is made a teacher, he will soon be lifted up into insolence.”[58]
It was no different even in the fifth century, as St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Pillar of the Faith, is found then also repeatedly confirming his adherence to the Teaching of Christ as it had been received, preserved, defended, and handed down by the Fathers before him, and as he had received it in discipleship in and through the Church. Thus he writes: “Let Your Holiness be assured that we follow the opinions of the holy Fathers in all things, especially our blessed and all-renowned Father Athanasius. We refuse to differ from them in any respect. Let no one doubt this.”[59] And again he says in another place: “For I adhere to the faith of the sainted Fathers who assembled at Nicaea in all my discourses. No other path do I know but the orthodox faith, for I was nurtured, as were your holinesses, in the faith of the Gospel and the words of the apostles. It is this faith which I shall do my best to teach the churches.”[60]
It was not only among the bishops and public teachers, but also among the monastic teachers, both fathers and mothers, that the same teaching was upheld. Thus, Amma Theodora is quoted as saying that “a teacher ought to be a stranger to the desire for domination, vain-glory, and pride; one should not be able to fool him by flattery, nor blind him by gifts, nor conquer him by the stomach, nor dominate him by anger, but he should be patient, gentle and humble as far as possible; he must be tested and without partisanship, full of concern, and a lover of souls.”[61] Amma Syncletica also says, beautifully: “it is dangerous for anyone to teach who has not first been trained in the ‘practical’ life.”[62] And in the words of another ancient elder: “woe to those who sit in the seat of teaching, without having first sat in the seat of humility.” It suffices to read the account of the life of Abba Antony written by St. Athanasius to see this teaching lived most beautifully in the example of that great ascetic and founder of Christian monasticism — the man who, after 55 years of deep experience in the Christian life, said to those who came to learn from him: “The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words. Wherefore you, as children, carry that which you know to your father; and I as the elder share my knowledge and what experience has taught me with you.”[63]
In this manner, and with this spirit, the Fathers altogether were keen to teach, live, and administer the affairs of the Church in complete harmony with the teaching of Christ and His model of ecclesial governance, knowing themselves as His servants, striving in good conscience to carry out His will, not seeking anything for themselves, and taking no liberties to modify or alter the foundational principles and core operating philosophy the Lord had delivered to His Church. They were interested in building up people rather than buildings, and in filling their flocks with the wealth of sound teaching and rich piety rather than filling their parishes with adornments of gold and silver. They were keen to feed their people the best of solid spiritual food, rather than filling their stomachs with worthless physical food while leaving their minds and hearts hungry for the word of God. And so they and their people succeeded by God’s grace to develop and mature in a sound spiritual manner, avoiding the fate of those whom St. Paul describes as being “gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[64]
Teaching in the Church Today
Throughout history and even until the most recent age, the Church has found faithful servants who embody and possess the same spirit and understanding summarized above, and which is expressed most beautifully in the words of Bishop Gregorios, the twentieth-century bishop of Higher Theological Studies, Coptic Culture and Scientific Research: “the fire of persecution is to me more tolerable than the fire of the pulpit.” These fathers and teachers, whether Bishop Gregorios, or Pope Kyrillos VI,[65] or Pope Shenouda III,[66] or St. Habib Girgis,[67] or the multitude of other faithful teachers and shepherds by whom the Church was edified and blessed in the most recent period of her history, lived by this spirit, being keen to receive and live in complete accordance with sound doctrine and spirituality, to deliver the teaching of Christ fully and competently, and to serve God, rather than men, in accordance with their respective gifts, with complete humility and consecration of heart, not out of selfish ambition or self-seeking motives, but knowing themselves, upon being called by God to the service of His Church, they spoke, lived, and taught “not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, . . . in the sight of God in Christ.”[68]
Nevertheless, in recent years, there has emerged ample evidence of a fundamental departure from the spirit and model of authentic Christian education and ecclesial governance described in summary above, and thus once again an implicit preference of human wisdom to divine and unconscious deviation from the teaching, spirit, and system of Christ occasioning an already perceptible newfound confusion of tongues among the believers, which in turn results in a compromised unity akin to that suffered by the citizens of Babel.
Specifically, in the absence of universal, mandatory prerequisites to teaching in the Church or a generally applicable and enforced standard of practice for Christian education, such as are enjoined by the Scriptures, most especially the New Testament, and found in practice in the early Church, the believers are subjected to innumerable voices, ideas, spiritualities, and beliefs, both doctrinal and otherwise, not only in their personal lives, but also, and all the more dangerously, in the most vulnerable and sacred setting of ecclesial instruction. Further, as Christians continue to receive their doctrinal understandings and spiritual frameworks from a myriad of sources, both intra- and extra-ecclesially — a stark departure from the pedagogical system delivered by Christ and implemented and employed by the Apostles and the Fathers in the first centuries of Christianity —, they sacrifice in so doing the receipt of the consistent spirit, doctrine, and paradigm embodied and delivered by Christ and by which they must as believers understand and engage in pastoral care, prayer, service, worship, and all other aspects of personal and interpersonal Christian existence, and which is a necessary prerequisite to oneness, unity, and harmony both among the believers and between them and God.
Today, it is almost universally the case that countless believers in every diocese and parish are entrusted to teach, irrespective of their manner of life, soundness of doctrine, familiarity with the Scriptures, or whether they are able to teach, as the Scriptures require, and often several priests are ordained upon and found routinely teaching in one parish, all with varying degrees of preparation, if any, and without regard to the gifts, talents, and abilities of each — in direct contradiction to the Scriptural teaching that not many among the believers should become teachers, and that those who teach in the Church should be able, due to both divine gift and personal discipleship and training, to do so. Educational parish meetings are frequently administered such that each week, a new speaker is invited to lecture — often based upon considerations of popularity, or self-promotion, or convenience, or interest, or necessity — or worse, attendees are tasked with teaching themselves and one another in order to engender in them a sense of ownership and “encourage them to participate” in the service of their parish.
Further, in seeking to receive spiritual teaching or hear a spiritual message, Christians routinely turn to online platforms where sermons and lectures from various speakers are housed, categorized, and easily accessible, undertaking thereby self-directed learning in Christian matters, most often indiscriminately and without the requisite training, formation, and practice that enables one to distinguish sound doctrine from unsound, or Orthodox Christian spirituality from non-Orthodox. What is more, social media provides a platform for innumerable accounts actively engaging in self-directed teaching with feigned authority on matters of doctrine and faith, whose words and messages the believers read, view, and passively consume as a matter of course as they scroll through their social media feeds.
And finally, given the philosophy of pastoral care that has come to be commonly practiced today — one that is fundamentally consumeristic in its nature —, parish meetings, liturgical homilies, and other settings of ecclesial instruction are becoming increasingly devoid of doctrinal subjects, shortened to account for other, invariably more entertaining and exciting, parish activities, and unwelcoming of theologically trained and spiritually robust teachers who, besides frustrating today’s widespread desire for maximum inclusivity in parish and diocesan service, even that of teaching, challenge intellectually and hold accountable attendees and deliver the teaching on topics and in ways that are perceived or purported as being more traditional, demanding, and complex than people would like. In all of these and other ways, teaching and learning among the believers has taken on a character and model that is neither consistent with that of the early Church nor conducive to a sound discipleship or a consistent transmission of faith.
As it was in Babel centuries ago, the dangers posed by the present model as previously described are far-reaching and represent a grave threat to both the unity of the believers and the soundness of their doctrine. The pastoral epistles of St. Paul clearly emphasize that a bishop — the rank among the clergy entrusted with teaching and ensuring soundness of instruction in the Church — was to possess the gift and ability to teach and to have lived with conviction in sound doctrine and a Christian manner of life even prior to ordination.[69] The bishop must also have received the faith from a trusted source,[70] and those who were entrusted to teach were to be disciples, tested and known to be faithful, and capable of teaching others.[71] In applying this divinely-inspired system, the early Church was able to ensure that the spirit, teaching, and life delivered by Christ to the Apostles continued to be preserved and transmitted from generation to generation by and among the believers, being safeguarded from both heresy and external influence.
Moreover, any deviation from the spirit and doctrine of the Church in a parish or diocese could be identified, remedied, or addressed directly at its source, as it was clearly known who was teaching there, and who had delivered that strange doctrine or spirit to the believers. For instance, St. Paul, in writing to Timothy, mentions several divisive individuals who, having entered into and mingled with the flock of God, had led some away with their strange teaching.[72] Having left him behind as the legitimate teacher and administrator of Ephesus during his time there, St. Paul also advises Timothy to admonish those who espoused strange teaching, and to correct, exhort, and guide the flock while protecting it from those strange teachers.[73] St. Paul also instructs his disciple Titus, whom he left in Crete to also oversee the service there, in the same way.[74] Thus, St. Paul, as an apostle and as the teacher of Timothy and Titus, faithfully delivered to those churches specifically, and to the Church generally, the manner by which teaching and instruction ought to be carried out therein.
As described briefly above, the Church in the age after the Apostles upheld and enjoyed this same system. As was recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, for instance, at the time of Pope Dionysius, it became known that in the churches of Arsinoe, the heresy of millenarianism had spread among the believers. The pope therefore visited that diocese and spent three days with the teachers and presbyters who had learned and taught this heresy, after which the primary teacher, Coracion, having happily received correction, proclaimed that he would no longer teach or mention that strange doctrine.[75] Thereafter, when in the fourth century Arius began to spread in his church in Alexandria the misunderstandings and heresies that were later collectively termed “Arianism,” the bishops, knowing from whom those teachings arose, were able to target Arius directly in their efforts to rehabilitate and correct him. When he refused correction, they were likewise able to excommunicate him, both to lead him to repentance and to officially declare to all who may have been misled or influenced by him that his teaching was not accepted by the Church.
In all of these and many other examples, it is clear that the Church was able to preserve the doctrine and spirit she received from Christ particularly by governing and administering her service as He Himself delivered — that is, by entrusting teaching and the transmission of the doctrine and spirit of the Faith to the bishop and/or priests and teachers who had first received that doctrine and spirit from a trusted source in discipleship and through intentional, consistent, and longstanding participation in the ecclesial life, possessed a sound ecclesial spirit, preserved, studied, and practiced the doctrine of Christ with integrity and competence, and were endowed by God with the gift and ability to understand and deliver them appropriately. The Christians, likewise, were faithful in receiving that doctrine and spirit from the one who was entrusted by God through the Church to deliver them, and when they were misled as a result of a compromised bishop, priest, or teacher, they could easily be corrected and returned to the truth given the known teacher of the heresy or misunderstanding they had been led to adopt.
In that context, the model of teaching often found today in the Church and among the believers is both practically dangerous and conceptually a fundamental departure from that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles and kept and practiced by the early Church. Indeed, to find many people teaching in one church, whether priests or congregants, is to endanger the flock by facilitating an environment in which multiple heresies, misunderstandings, and strange teachings can be taught, received, and delivered within the same community, either innocently by an unknowing carrier or cunningly by a disingenuous or deviant progenitor. Also arising from this model of teaching and learning is the less obvious but equally dangerous possibility of engendering a variety of opinions, frameworks, and approaches which, while not themselves necessarily heretical, may nonetheless create disunity and division among the community of believers and even unknowingly be founded upon a heretical paradigm. These “schools” in the service, as they are often called, most frequently mask the existence of ideas, teachings, and systems that do not necessarily find their roots within the Scriptural and Patristic framework, but instead represent collections of personal preferences, cultural or individual practices, and popular teachings and understandings that have become internalized, normalized, and idealized by those who subscribe to such “schools.”
Moreover, alongside the adoption of this model of teaching, the believers’ consumption of readily-accessible sermons and lectures online, and of posts, blog entries, and articles by various authors, without regard to the speaker’s spirit, doctrine, or qualifications, whether spiritual, intellectual, or otherwise, likewise represents a departure from the system of learning and teaching that was delivered by Christ and practiced by the early Church. Simply, such an approach to learning, rather than being informed by sound personal discipleship and firmly rooted in the Holy Tradition, is instead built upon and facilitated by modern underpinnings of consumerism, convenience, and the ideal of choice.
The believer who, in seeking to hear an edifying word or learn a principle of doctrine or faith, elects to visit a platform like OrthodoxSermons.org or YouTube to receive his teaching or guidance, is in reality no different than a customer walking into a Starbucks and ordering his drink of choice. The believer who, while scrolling through social media, encounters, reads, and accepts as true a post or video by some Christian “influencer” or purported teacher — whether sound in faith or not — is no different than a commuter reading and accepting as true a message proclaimed by a billboard advertisement on the roadside. What is more, even absent acceptance, the mere exposure to such content incrementally and insidiously alters, reshapes, and modifies our spiritual and doctrinal frameworks and spiritual integrity. No consistent system, spirit, or doctrine can be received through such a method of learning. Instead, what is received, and what ultimately defines the believer’s mindset, thoughts, frameworks, and understandings — both in terms of the service in the Church and in terms of that believer’s life in the world and in relation to society and others — is an amalgamation of incoherent and inconsistent teachings, opinions, and ideas that have been encountered, internalized, and reconciled together into one disjointed framework by that believer within himself or herself.
In reality, then, being that the community of believers is made up of members who ought to grow together in piety and deliver the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith of Christ from one generation to the next, the Church community itself becomes, through this self-reinforcing, independent model of learning (whether active or passive), a cocktail of the incoherent and inconsistent teachings that are internalized, practiced, and propagated by those who constitute it from one generation to the next. In this milieu, the homily becomes an unnecessary addition to a saturated market of Christian content, the substance of which being either accepted or rejected based upon the eloquence of the speaker, the attractiveness by which it is delivered, and whether it evokes positive feelings in the hearers, rather than upon the spirit, experience, and wisdom of the teacher, the soundness of the teaching delivered, and the need of the congregation to hear the teaching proclaimed. Church meetings and settings of instruction in the parishes further become avenues for socialization, opportunities for the promotion of certain persons based upon various illegitimate considerations — egoism, popularity, and other such factors —, and community-building activities, rather than settings of sound, rich education, discipleship, and spiritual edification. In these ways, the believers and parishes gradually become almost entirely unconcerned in practice with the quality of teaching delivered or the piety and spiritual exemplariness of the teacher, such that the very people they would, in time past, having been properly formed in accordance with sound Christian principles, have revered, lauded, and empowered in the service of teaching become to them unfavorable and unwelcome frustraters of their desired ends.
This gradual process gives rise to a compounding confusion of tongues such that the Church community, in falling prey to the same vice and tendency of thought and behavior that characterized the people of Babel so many centuries ago, gradually begins to resemble Babel much more than it does the Church on the day of Pentecost. And so the transmission of sound teaching in the Church — and thereby, the reception and transmission of sound doctrine and the one spirit of Christ by the believers in the Church — faces significant danger. As believers are increasingly shaped, and, disastrously, shaping themselves, by a consumeristic, self-directed approach to Christian learning, this danger of disunity of heart and internalization of strange doctrine is exponentially magnified. It is, after all, those very same believers who are entrusted to teach in their respective churches, often without any prior examination of doctrine and manner of life, requirement of prior training or study, or other quality control elements being in place to ensure that those who teach and those who learn from them are adequately protected. This process engenders a perpetual state of spiritual and doctrinal immaturity, as diluted, and often spoiled, milk is continually fed to the believers by those who, while well-intentioned, are simply unequipped with the gifts and qualifications necessary to impart anything more, and thus incapable of occasioning the requisite maturation to solid food which the believers ontologically need but, due to their malnourished and developmentally stunted state, do not realize that they need, and so do not want.
For this reason, the believers — whether clergy or laity, student or teacher — are in many ways unknowing victims of a vicious cycle that perpetuates itself with increasing intensity while reinforcing its hold by preventing the means required to break it. In this light, it is imperative to recognize two foundational truths: first, the baseline presumption that those who teach and learn in the ways we have discussed are sincere and well-intentioned is unchallenged, and second, the very recognition of the problem is in many ways dependent upon its solution.
What, then, is that solution? Only an intentional return to the Scriptural and Patristic model of teaching and learning. Such a reversal of course, while perhaps appearing simplistic and quite challenging, is urgently necessary in order to safeguard the sound doctrine and spirit the Church has received. This return necessarily requires that all “schools” and systems that have been adopted by the believers — and not only today’s methods of teaching and learning — be critiqued in light of the sources of Christian authority, and all elements of such models that fail under the scrutiny of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Canons, and the Holy Tradition generally be promptly abandoned, irrespective of who might have adopted them from among the flock — clergy or laity — and when they may have been adopted. Only in returning to the original ecclesial understanding of teaching, doctrine, discipleship, worship, canon, and all other fundamental aspects of the Faith can the Church today hope to ensure the transmission of sound doctrine and the realization of true unity among her members. That unity cannot be accomplished except by such a purposeful return to the original system that Christ entrusted to the Church. Only in this way can the Church thwart a return to Babel.
—
[1] Genesis 11:1-9
[2] “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13).
[3] Genesis 11:4
[4] Ibid.
[5] See Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 6.10.2: “After the flood, as if striving to fortify themselves against God, as if there could be anything high for God or anything secure for pride, certain proud men built a tower, ostensibly so that they might not be destroyed by a flood if one came later. For they had heard and recalled that all iniquity had been destroyed by the flood. They were unwilling to abstain from iniquity. They sought the height of a tower against a flood; they built a lofty tower. God saw their pride, and he caused this disorder to be sent upon them, that they might speak but not understand one another, and tongues became different through pride.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] C.f. Colossians 3:2
[8] Genesis 11:5
[9] See John 12:32: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”; See also St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 25.3-4: “For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. And so it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out his hands, that with the one he might draw the ancient people and with the other those from the Gentiles and unite both in himself. For this is what he himself has said, signifying by what manner of death he was to ransom all: ‘I, when I am lifted up,’ he says, ‘shall draw all unto me.’”
[10] Acts 2:1-4
[11] See St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 17.17
[12] See 1 Corinthians 14; Romans 12:3-8
[13] St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 17.17
[14] Ephesians 4:3
[15] See Acts 1:1
[16] Matthew 11:29
[17] Matthew 5:19; See also Matthew 7:24, 26: “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock… But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
[18] Matthew 28:19-20a
[19] Acts 6:3
[20] 1 Timothy 5:17
[21] 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 7; Similarly, to Titus St. Paul writes: “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:7-9).
[22] 2 Timothy 4:1-2
[23] James 3:1, 13
[24] 1 Timothy 5:22a
[25] 1 Timothy 6:3
[26] 1 Timothy 6:4-5
[27] 2 Timothy 2:16
[28] 2 Timothy 2:23
[29] Titus 3:9-11
[30] Acts 20:18-31
[31] 2 John 9-11
[32] 1 Corinthians 5:9-11
[33] 2 Thessalonians 3:14
[34] Titus 3:10-11
[35] 1 Timothy 1:20
[36] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4
[37] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 7; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4
[38] 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[39] 2 Timothy 2:1-2
[40] 2 Timothy 2:15
[41] 2 Timothy 4:5
[42] Ephesians 4:7-16
[43] 1 Corinthians 12:1, 4-11, 28-31
[44] Romans 12:3-8
[45] 1 Peter 4:10-11
[46] 1 Timothy 5:21
[47] Romans 2:11
[48] See James 3:17: “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.”
[49] See Matthew 23:10
[50] 1 Corinthians 3:5-10
[51] See, generally, Against Heresies 3 (esp. 3.1-5).
[52] Ibid.
[53] Origen, De Principiis 1.2
[54] Gregory, Oration 33.15
[55] Athanasius, Festal Letters 2.7
[56] Athanasius, Letter to Serapion 1.28
[57] John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 3.10-11
[58] John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy 10.2
[59] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to John of Antioch
[60] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to the Monks at Constantinople
[61] Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Amma Theodora 5
[62] Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Amma Syncletica 12
[63] Athanasius, Life of Antony 16
[64] 2 Timothy 3:6-7
[65] This sound Christian spirit and understanding is also clearly and sincerely expressed by Pope Kyrillos VI in his First Papal Sermon: “I thank my good God, the Lord of Glory, who has called me and chosen my weakness for this holy service, not worthily, but out of the abundance of His grace, for the purpose of shepherding His blessed people and for the service, that the sign of His glory may be exalted, and for the preparation of individuals as well as nations for the inheritance of eternal life. Beloved, I feel in myself the responsibility that has been placed on my shoulder, and the holy deposit that has been tied around my neck, and these talents that have been delivered to me from the Lord of the Church – these talents in which I must invest to bear fruit and multiply. But who am I? It is the grace of God that works in us and with us. Certainly, He who has called me will assist me in the apostolic service. . . . I ask the Lord that He may grant us all oneness of spirit and heart and thought, that we may work together with one mind and one will, that is the will of the Holy Spirit, Who has guided the Church throughout her long glorious history. And we have one holy goal: the glory of God and the service of Truth and the highest aspirations. I do not aspire to anything and 'neither is my soul haughtily raised within me' (Ps. 131:1), except that I may complete my struggle joyfully and the service that I have taken from the Lord Jesus, knowing that you are my joy and pleasure and crown of boasting (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19).”
[66] See, e.g., Pope Shenouda III, Priesthood, 90: “[Christ] is our true Teacher, and from Him emanates all knowledge[,] [w]hile the priest relays God’s teachings to the flock. . . His Glory is made manifest through the correct teaching [delivered] by His appointed teachers.” It is well beyond the scope of this work to speak of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III as a teacher. Indeed, his faithfulness, concern, and example in the area of ecclesial education require no introduction, having rightfully earned him the title “Teacher of Generations.” It is my hope that in the near future, scholarly work of a high caliber that adequately and honestly represents this modern saint and his innumerable contributions to Christianity generally, and Coptic Orthodoxy specifically, might be published, in order to pay due respect and accord due recognition to him while reintroducing him to a new generation of believers who may not be familiar with his importance and refuting the revisionary, disdainful efforts actively exerted by some in recent years to scandalize his name, defame his teaching, and undermine his legacy.
[67] St. Habib Girgis is quoted as saying that “education is the first need of the community after bread” (see Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis: Coptic Orthodox Educator and a Light in the Darkness, 12). Further, his appointment as Dean of the Theological Seminary by His Holiness Pope Cyril V was, in the words of Pope Cyril, “due to our certainty of your virtue, enthusiasm and ceaseless efforts for the betterment of the college, and also due to our total trust in your zeal and faithfulness to our beloved church, having served as a teacher in the above mentioned college for a long time,” witnessing to his piety and experience in teaching while evidencing Pope Cyril V’s own clarity of understanding and conviction, thoroughly in line with the biblical and patristic teaching, with respect to the necessary criteria to be considered when appointing one to teach in the Church. St. Habib Girgis is himself well documented in his conviction that proper, systematic training — particularly seminary training — is a necessary prerequisite to ordination to the priesthood and to teaching in the Church, and that for this reason, the Church must be centrally occupied with the quality of the education she provides her clergymen and teachers, especially in and through her official Seminary. For instance, he quotes Butrus Pasha Ghali in writing: “Be concerned with the Clerical School before any other institution . . . if you do not have the Clerical School, where will you train your pastors?” (Habib Girgis, The Coptic Orthodox Seminary 23, as quoted in Bishop Suriel’s aforementioned work, at 89-90). He writes elsewhere: “the Church cannot present to us true leaders, counselors, and reformers unless her leaders and pastors are specially trained to practice their lofty and critical roles. Who can be compared to them except those with similar critical positions in life? An engineer cannot take on this role without proper training in the faculty of engineering. The physician cannot be trusted over people's bodies and souls unless he receives both theoretical and practical education in his faculty. The situation is similar also for a judge, lawyer, teacher, farmer, and mechanic, as well as others who are comparable . . . Hence, a religious pastor is not exempt from this, since a pastor worthy of this title and worthy to be responsible for souls needs to be educated in religious and secular subjects. But it is more important that the priest perfect the sacraments and characteristics of his profession than any of those other professions, so that he may fulfill his obligations and carry out his burdens.” (Habib Girgis, The Clerical School: Its Past, Present, and Future, in al-Karmah 9.9, as quoted by Bishop Suriel in his aforementioned work, at 91-92).
[68] 2 Corinthians 2:17
[69] 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9, 2:7-8
[70] 2 Timothy 1:5, 2:2, 3:10-15
[71] 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:2
[72] 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18
[73] 1 Timothy 1:3-4, 8-20, 4:11-16, 6:1-2, 11-16, 20-21; 2 Timothy 2:14-16, 23-26, 4:1-5
[74] Titus 1:5, 10-14, 2:1-15, 3:1-2, 10-11
[75] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24