Search Results

The Apocalypse of John, whom Tradition names the “Liturgist,” [1] is inherently a book of worship, outlining for the believers the expectations and outcomes of the life of Faith. Through the various revelations recorded by John in this divinely-inspired book, the Lord Jesus Christ conveys, both to John himself and to the readers of the book more generally, a central message of exhortation to faithfulness. He, the Just Judge, is shown throughout the Apocalypse to be working patiently for the salvation of all souls, so that none would be lost except the son of perdition. [2] Indeed, divine violence in the Apocalypse is best understood as the patient enactment of God’s justice: “The One seated on the throne is the God of justice; but the justice of our God is spelt mercy.” [3] The Apocalypse begins with a message to each of the churches from the Lord who exhorts them to complete perfection: “Repent” and “be faithful unto death.” [4] The believers are encouraged to remain faithful to God and not forsake the Faith which they have accepted and received, being steadfast despite the threat of persecution and hardship [5] so as not to become conformed to the world which will soon reap the fitting results of her deeds and stance against God. By virtue of their acceptance of the Faith and abidance according to it, the believers are prepared for the impending judgment. [6] As for those who are not members of the Church — who belong to the world and submit to its influences — God is found in the Revelation providing these every opportunity for repentance and seeking their salvation through a variety of means. By exhorting the believers to remain steadfast, He intends for them to become His witnesses in the world, as the Lord often taught in His sermons. [7] Another method seen in the Apocalypse by which God seeks the repentance of those who are of the world is through unleashing plagues upon the earth. Evidently, these plagues, being permitted by God, [8] are intended for the repentance of the people — meant to cause them to realize the fleeting nature of the world as well as the power and authority of God as its Creator, and thereby compel them to seek refuge in Him. Thus: “when people cry out in terror, the movement toward judgment is interrupted and readers are shown the scale of divine redemption (6:16-17; 7:1-17). The trumpet visions continue depicting divine wrath against the ungodly, but when the plagues fail to bring repentance, judgment is again interrupted so that the faithful can bear witness (9:20-21; 10:1-11:12). Only when many have been brought to glorify God does the final trumpet sound (11:13-15).” [9] As the wrath of God unfolds through violence on the earth, this enactment of divine violence results in the peaceful scene of heavenly worship, the beautiful liturgy in which humanity is invited to participate. [10] While the strength of the victorious God is displayed throughout the Apocalypse, another power is also found exerting its strength over the world — that of the dragon, identified as “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” [11] The antithesis of the patient and long-suffering mercy of God in seeking the repentance of all people is the cruelty, deceit, impurity, and violence of the beast and dragon. They, unlike God, utilize violence to inflict fear so as to impose their authority upon humanity. While the violence of God does not directly harm humanity, [12] the beast and dragon find their satisfaction in the persecution and torment of mankind. This dragon, representative of Satan and his evil powers, is found pursuing a woman “clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12: “And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God…And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished…The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.” [13] Much speculation is found regarding the symbolism of the woman. Since John amalgamates a variety of Scriptural features and contexts into the Apocalypse, thereby creating new imagery out of the old, a multifaceted consideration of the various revelations uncovers a deeper understanding that may be gleaned from the text. In presenting this imagery through a diversity of lenses, such as the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament Church, and Greco-Roman culture, the Apocalypse succeeds to convey an especially rich message — of the victorious Christ and the victory enjoyed by those who faithfully endure in the Faith in Him — to a wide array of diverse readers.  Utilizing Old Testament language, John presents the woman clothed with the sun as representative of the people of God, who is Himself the “Sun of righteousness.” [14] The twelve tribes of Israel, encompassing the entirety of God’s people in the Old Testament, are represented on the crown adorning the head of the woman, reminiscent of the twelve stones adorning the clothing of the Levitical priests. [15] The pursuit of the woman likewise recalls Israel’s most formative experience — the Exodus, in which, having been led out of Egypt, they crossed the sea and emerged from it into the wilderness, with the waters gathering together behind them to drown their pursuers: “Pharaoh’s chariots and his host He cast into the sea.” [16] Having reached Mount Sinai, the Israelites were reminded by God through Moses: “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will obey My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My own possession among all peoples.” [17] The Apocalypse hearkens to this covenant with God, as the woman clothed with the sun is given “two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness.” [18] The synthesis of Israelite imagery in the Apocalypse is not divorced from the experience of the New Testament, but rather reveals the profound christological and ecclesiological understanding of the Christian Church: the followers of Christ, constituting the Church, are the true Israel [19] — the perpetuation of the covenant established by God with His people [20] most perfectly realized in light of His economy of salvation. Thus, for early Christian commentators on the Apocalypse, the woman clothed with the sun is not understood as being representative of the Israelites exclusively, but through them, also the Church. [21] The understanding of the woman clothed with the sun as representative of the Christian Church further finds its foundation in the Virgin Mary: being the Mother of God, she becomes also the mother of all who put on Christ in baptism. [22] Thus, Augustine writes: “His Mother [Mary] is the [mother of the] whole Church, because she herself assuredly gives birth to His members, that is His faithful ones.” [23] Likewise, Origen identifies that if Christ is to be formed in the believers, they must not only become His beloved disciples, but also take His mother as their own. [24] In light of this Mariological understanding, the woman clothed with the sun emerges as an icon of the Virgin Mary, and through her, the Church. This imagery and interpretation is presented in the weekday Psalmody of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which contemplates: “I saw a sign shown in the sky: a woman clothed with the sun, she also had the moon abiding under her feet and twelve stars forming a crown on her head; being pregnant in labor, crying out to give birth — she is Mary, the new heaven on earth, from whom shines on us the Sun of Righteousness. For the Sun with which she is clothed is our Lord Jesus Christ, the moon below her feet is John the Baptist, and the twelve stars forming a crown on her head are the twelve apostles surrounding her, bestowing honor!” [25] In a similar manner, the pursuit of the woman by the dragon was interpreted by Oecumenius in the sixth century in relation to the Virgin Mary and the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt. [26] The situation of the woman in the wilderness can also be understood within the context of the Church’s vocation: to be in  the world but not of the world. [27] The Christians — the offspring of the Virgin Mary by virtue of their putting on Christ, her Son, through baptism — are “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.” [28] As a result, they continually face the spiritual warfare waged by the evil powers. The fluidity of the imagery presented in the Apocalypse enables such a diversity of interpretation. Being concerned with the conversion of the world to the Faith in Christ, the Apocalypse has for its audience all people, and not exclusively those deeply acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. As such, the Apocalypse also appropriates certain elements of Greco-Roman literature, embedding them within the same discourse in relation to the Faith in Christ. [29] Wilfred Harrington pertinently notes: “The closest parallel, however, to the narrative of the woman and the dragon is a Graeco-Roman version of the legend of Apollo’s birth. Leto had become pregnant by Zeus. The dragon Python foresaw that this child, a son, would replace him as ruler over the oracle at Delphi. He sought to kill the child at birth. Zeus commissioned the North wind and the sea-god Poseidon to aid Leto. She gave birth to Apollo and Artemis; Apollo slew the dragon Python. John adapted the story to describe the birth of the Messiah. But it is not his only source.” [30] In the Apocalypse narrative, the victor is Christ, rather than Apollo, who defeats the dragon by His own death. Craig Koester explains: “…the imagery would have engaged the interest of a wide spectrum of readers…The characters and plotline in John’s vision take on a distinctive form that is designed to shape his readers’ perspectives on the situation of Jesus’ followers in the world.” [31] In an innovative manner, the Apocalypse “baptizes” the mythological story, painting it in a Christian light in connection to the Scriptural narrative, thereby granting Gentile readers an effective means to understanding the reality and significance of Christ’s salvific act. The scenes of violence in the Apocalypse serve as catalysts for humanity’s return to God and pursuit of Him and powerfully depict the results of one’s allegiances. The dragon slays “those who would not worship the image of the beast,” [32] and despite this, humanity continues to submit to the authority of the dragon and the beast although they are actively killing them. The Lord, on the other hand, is “He who offers Himself as an acceptable sacrifice upon the Cross for the salvation of our race.” [33] Whereas God ultimately sheds His blood for the sake of humanity, the woman seated on the beast — becoming herself a distorted parody of the Incarnate Son of God seated on the throne with His Father [34] — rather feasts on the blood of the people. [35] For this reason, while God patiently endures the evil of the world and seeks to inspire repentance among mankind — being Himself merciful — the time comes when the final judgment is to be carried out — for He is also just. Those who experience all of the plagues and wrath of God and do not repent, [36] but rather flee to seek refuge within the earth, [37] submitting themselves to the beast and dragon who seek their destruction, have ultimately rejected God. He has conquered, and while the evil one is “loosed for a little while,” [38] deceiving humanity for a time with his cunningly attractive façade, the final and eternal triumph belongs to God. Sin deserves its consequence. [39] Thus, those who have aligned themselves with the earth and its ruler will be met with torment at the time of the final judgment: “if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [40] The theme of repentance echoes consistently throughout John’s Apocalypse, wherein the people of God — namely, all who adhere to the Faith in Christ — reap the benefits of their allegiance to the victorious slain Lamb. In conformity to Christ, [41] the believers are to expect rejection and aggressive opposition from the world and its powers. Despite this immediate state of persecution, even being cast outside the city and chased into the wilderness, the people of God are reminded of the victory of Christ which is enjoyed by those who endure the tribulation and remain faithful until the end. The endurance of such hardship becomes for them the opportunity to grow in conformity to Him who conquered, conquers, and will conquer, so that they too may emerge victorious over the powers of the evil one. For this reason, the people of the One whose voice “was like the sound of many waters” [42] are themselves heard crying with a voice “like the sound of many waters” [43] by the end of the Apocalypse. Utilizing a diverse array of imagery, drawing from both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the ritual expressions of the Church’s worship, [44] as well as contemporary Greco-Roman literary features, John presents this message of a reality that transcends sociocultural boundaries — that of the heavenly worship and eternal citizenship in the new heaven and earth with God to which all are called, both Jews and Gentiles alike. A nuanced reading of the Apocalypse as a whole, and especially as exemplified in the account of Revelation 12, therefore reveals the vocation of Christianity in the world, and through it the call of Christ to all of humanity — the same exhortation by which He began His earthly ministry: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [45] — [1] See e.g. , José Granados, Introduction to Sacramental Theology: Signs of Christ in the Flesh , 64 [2] See  John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; “Son of perdition is a Hebraism in which the genitive is ambiguous. It can denote the person’s character, as in Ps 57:4, where ‘children of unrighteousness’ is rendered in the LXX τέκνα άπωλείας ; or the person’s destiny, as in Isa 34:5, where ‘the people I have doomed’ appears in the LXX as τόν λαόν τής άπωλείας . The same expression, ‘the son of perdition,’ ό νίός τής άπωλείας , is applied to the Antichrist in 2 Thess 2:3 in parallelism with ‘the man of lawlessness,’ presumably to denote his evil nature, but it may also include the thought of his sure destruction, which is mentioned in 2 Thess 2:8” (George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 36: John , 299). [3] Wilfrid J. Harrington, Sacra Pagina: Revelation , 32 [4] See  Revelation 2:5, 10, 16, 22; 3:3, 10-11, 19 [5] “The goal of each message [to the Churches, in chapters 2 and 3] is to evoke enduring faithfulness, and the interplay between encouragement and rebuke is designed to achieve this end. … Christ, the Lion of Judah, conquered as a Lamb whose self-sacrifice brings people into God’s kingdom. Christ’s followers are to conquer in a similar way through faithful self-sacrifice” (Craig R. Koester, The Anchor Yale Bible: Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary , 237). [6] Notably, this expectation of the eschaton was incorporated into many early Christian creeds of Faith. In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as one example, the believers chant: “We look for the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the coming age. Amen.” [7] For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount: “You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world…Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16). [8] “…the Lamb, by breaking the first seal, unleashes the plagues…The second horseman has been given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slaughter one another: the complementary sides of warfare. Given  power — even destructive war serves a divine purpose! It is a forceful way of stressing that nothing, not even the most awful things that humans can do to one another, and to our world, can ever frustrate God’s saving purpose” (Harrington, 91). [9] Koester, 307 [10] See  Revelation 8:1-5; 10:15-19 [11] Revelation 12:9 [12] In the plagues which God permits, the only harm that comes to humanity is inflicted by humanity against itself: when the horsemen of Revelation 6 act, it is men who slay one another; likewise the death which results after the fourth trumpet is blown in Revelation 8 comes from the actions of men who drink of the water which had become wormwood ( see  Revelation 8:10-11); the locusts which emerge from the earth, moreover, are specifically instructed not to kill those who are not sealed (Revelation 9:4-5). God directly gives the initiative, in Revelation 7, that the creation should not be harmed until the servants of God are sealed (Revelation 7:3). [13] See  Revelation 12 [14] Malachi 4:2 [15] Exodus 28:21 [16] Exodus 15:4 [17] Exodus 19:4-5 [18] Revelation 12:14 [19] Robert Mounce finds the woman clothed with the sun as representative of “the messianic community, the ideal Israel,” although he excludes the possibility of understanding this imagery through the Virgin Mary, a stance that this paper seeks to assert as being insufficient ( See  Robert H. Mounce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Revelation , 230). [20] See  Genesis 12:1-3 [21] “For Victorinus, the woman encompassed both ancient Israel and the followers of Jesus. She groans as the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles groaned for the coming of the Messiah. Her twelve stars relate to Israel’s early history, since they symbolize the sons of Jacob. The dragon’s threat against the child corresponds to the time of Jesus, when the devil tempted him in the wilderness. Finally, the dragon’s horns are ten kings who will reign at the end of the age” (Koester, 525-526); Harrington likewise understands the woman to be “the people of God of the Old Testament who, having given Christ to the world, thereby became the Christian Church” (Harrington, 130). [22] Galatians 3:27 [23] Augustine, On Holy Virginity , 5 [24] See  Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on John  1.23 [25] The Thursday θεοτοκια, 9 [26] Koester summarizes Oecumenius’ view, writing: “The devil’s attempt to devour the child occurred when Herod the Great ordered all the children in Bethlehem to be slain, and the woman’s escape to the wilderness was the holy family’s escape to Egypt, as reported in Matt 2:1-18” (Koester, 526). [27] See e.g. , John 17:11-19; 1 John 2:15-17; Commenting on the condition of the Church in the wilderness, John Chrysostom profoundly writes: “And now, should you come unto the desert of Egypt, you will see this desert become better than any paradise, and ten thousand choirs of angels in human forms, and nations of martyrs, and companies of virgins, and all the devil’s tyranny put down, while Christ’s kingdom shines forth in its brightness.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew  8.5-6). [28] Revelation 12:17 [29] “Recent studies have noted, however, that Rev 12 has affinities with both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions and does not follow any one tradition exactly…writers point out that myths are characterized by variety rather than uniformity. Mythic patters share certain typical elements while exhibiting variations in detail. Sometimes, ancient plotlines were combined” (Koester, 528). [30] Harrington, 129 [31] Koester, 530 [32] Revelation 13:15 [33] See  the Hymn Ⲫⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲁϥ ⲉⲛϥ. [34] See  Revelation 3:21 [35] Revelation 17:6 [36] See e.g. , Revelation 6:15-17; 9:20-21; 16:9, 11, 21 [37] See  Revelation 6:15-17 [38] Revelation 20:3 [39] See  Revelation 16:4-7 [40] See  Revelation 20 [41] Conformity to Christ is a prominent theme found in the writings of John the Evangelist. The characters represented in the Gospel, as also its reader, grow step by step into deeper belief and relation with God and conformity to Him as the Gospel’s narrative progresses. The first-called disciples, for instance, are found echoing the call of the Lord Jesus Christ: as He says to them “Come and see,” Philip implores Nathaniel with the same words ( See  John 1:39, 46). Similarly, in his Epistles, John exhorts the believers towards conformity to Christ: “he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked” (1 John 2:6). [42] Revelation 1:15 [43] Revelation 19:6 [44] For instance, the use of incense and the chanting of hymns to God appear often in the Apocalypse ( See e.g. , Revelation 8:3-4; 4:8). [45] Matthew 4:17 —

“Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”   St. Augustine’s beautiful exhortation has achieved immortality not because it speaks to the presence of human desire, but because it exposes the true nature of that desire: our inborn purpose as created beings to remain in a state of eternal communion with God and with others. This divine purpose, or telos , is more than an attribute of our humanity. It is a fundamental and inescapable human reality. We can ignore it, we can resist it, but we cannot escape that eternal end   God has instilled so deeply within us. If eternal communion is our end, sacramental communication  is the means to achieve it. Such communication binds the Church together, in heaven as on earth. Indeed, the Holy Sacraments represent both a medium of divine communication and a model for Christocentric communication. This is because we were created by a Triune God, who exists in a state of perpetual communication, who created a sacramental cosmos by speaking it into existence — a God who shaped humanity into His likeness, and who left us with the Holy Sacraments, so that we may not only desire but also reach the true end of all communication — communion with God and with others. We should communicate sacramentally because we were created to live sacramentally. We are sacramental beings. Sacramentality is embedded in our reality. This shows us why we must communicate sacramentally to a world starving for wonder. When viewed through a sacramental lens, the universe — reality itself — becomes a blueprint for Christian communication, a multilayered mystery that reveals itself both broadly through the Church and acutely through the administration of her Sacraments. By living out the sacramental life, we begin to realize the fullness of our human potential for God-centered communication, marching ever closer to that ultimate reality we long for, the culmination of our relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ, that blessed eternal feast — the beatific vision. Outlining the form of sacramental communication in turn shows us the path to Christocentric communication. Thus, we see that communication not only binds the Church together, but also connects the faithful to God and to one another. In the Holy Sacraments, communication and ritual combine to remind us of, and conform us to, the divine order. Indeed, we were created for festivity, and that creative design demands to be lived out in properly ordered actions. The Church teaches that the Sacraments are the normative means to such fulfillment on earth. Even those outside the visible bounds of the Church, however, display an innate penchant for sacramental festivity and ritual, even if it is not always practiced in a proper or purified form. Whether replete with the pure or profane, sacramental rituals define the human experience, shaping, and not merely punctuating, our existence. Our innate festivity coaxes us toward the Sacraments by compelling us to embrace the “small-S” sacramental life: morning and evening routines, graduation celebrations and anniversary dinners, birthdays and funerals. The inclination to treat these as sacred naturally flows from our innate sacramentality, fueled by our festivity, pointing us toward the divine Source of all, whether we realize it or not. Identifying this sacramental common-ground affords the evangelist a solid foundation for further discussion. To reach those outside of, or on the margins of, the Church, we must first identify and celebrate that which we already share in common, using our shared sacramental orientation to redirect our gaze upward. This shows us how we can communicate these sacramental truths to an unbelieving world. When properly ordered, sacramental desire leads us straight to God. But if God is not at the helm, our human inclination toward festivity will be hindered by concupiscence, distorting the sacred good we desire into something profane. Godlessness will not remove the sacramental desire that defines our humanity, but it will corrupt it, presenting a decayed alternative to the Incorruptible Bread and Wine we crave by nature. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) was right to warn us of the dangers we would face as a result of our self-inflicted desacralization — a uniquely dangerous sacramental unraveling of our own making. In wide swaths of society, we have lost — no, abandoned  — all appreciation and respect for the sacred. This neglect no doubt stems from a related rejection of the sacramental worldview. But since the world is fundamentally sacramental, insofar as it exists in and for God, who is not only holy but also the Source of Holiness, then we must  view the world through a sacramental lens or risk obscuring reality. Both divine revelation and personal experience support this conclusion. It is for this reason that our human experience comes into focus only when presented in its sacramental context. For this context extends beyond abstraction to absolute reality: the existential framework underlying the sacraments is as real as the tangible elements we taste and feel in them — realer , in the sense that the metaphysical reality precedes the physical. The two realities are inseparable, at once parallel and interwoven. Christ, the glorious Sacrament of all Sacraments, perfects and harmonizes this multilayered reality in the Incarnation. And now, by receiving Him in the Eucharist, we mystically enter the reality of the Incarnation. By receiving Christ sacramentally, we not only become like Christ but become “little christs,” empowering us to give the gift of self to the world. This is both the object and the fruit of sacramental communication.   This shows us what we should communicate to those who doubt the sacramental.   Returning to St. Augustine, we observe an outline of this sacramentality in his description of human desire: “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.” The sacramental life reminds us that we were made for more than this world; the sacramental life also leads us into the next. For we were designed in anticipation of a merging of the divine and the human, the visible and the invisible. We were created sacramentally . These observations highlight how sacramental communication is ingrained into existence itself, a reality we endeavor to emulate in our speech and actions. That is the sacramental communication the Church needs to effectively convey Christ’s message of hope to an unbelieving world. So, how can we use this knowledge to conform our lives to Christ? How do we elevate our natural festivity, accentuating the good while suppressing the bad? The Holy Sacraments are the answer to both. When we participate in the sacramental life of the Church, we actively reorient ourselves to Christ, encouraging festivity as it was intended. In its highest form, channeled through the Church’s Holy Sacraments, this transcendent communication represents a real participation in the divine. Just as heaven meets earth in the Mass at the moment of consecration, so too does God share something in common with us, his people, when he communicates grace through the Sacraments. In those moments, we truly “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). What a beautiful glimpse of heaven that is! This shows us Whom we sacramentally communicate when we share the truth in love. We have seen how, in the Sacraments, our need to communicate and our yearning for festivity are both ordered toward and sanctified by divine decree. The sacred is made tangible and the tangible, sanctified. It is a Holy Mystery that speaks to the heart of our relationship with God and fuels our pursuit of the Heavenly Banquet that awaits us. In English, the meaning of “communication” is rather reductive, so I want to turn our attention to the Latin it borrows from, communicatio , to reinforce this point. In Latin, the term evokes an active participation in, partaking of, and communing with something, with someone . This highlights the relationship that motivates our own communication — eternal communion with God. Only when understood in that context does the proper sacramental order fall into place, inspired by the Word of God made flesh. Communication incarnate. Christ Himself. This divine communicatio  is on full display in the Holy Mysteries, as they are known in the East (for indeed they are both holy and mysterious!), when God unites heaven and earth, the invisible and the visible, the symbolic and the real. The depth and power of sacramental communication are most profoundly revealed in the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith — the ideal representation of sacramental communication. For when we consume the living flesh of Christ, we proudly remember, proclaim, and participate in the reality of the Incarnation, remembering that “the Son of God became man that we might become [like] God” (St. Athanasius). Thus, we see that “Holy Communion” represents not only the particular Sacrament but the telos  instilled in each one of us: that insatiable desire to be in eternal communion with God and humanity which St. Augustine so famously described. The cosmos’s sacramentality nudges us in the right direction; the Blessed Sacrament shows us the way home. Until that time, our task is to convert our lives into living sacraments — ensuring everyone gets their invitation to the eternal feast. — Noah Bradon is the director of marketing and executive producer at the University of Notre Dame's McGrath Institute for Church Life . Noah earned his Master of Arts in Theology from the University of Notre Dame and a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Central Florida. His graduate research explored the intersection of theology and communication, which remains a focal point of his work at McGrath. Notre Dame Bio : mcgrath.nd.edu/NoahBradon YouTube Channel : youtube.com/@NoahBradon (@NoahBradon across social) Portfolio / Personal Blog : noahbradon.com DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

A Homily on the First Sunday of Great Lent His Eminence Metropolitan Mina of Girga, Egypt, delivered at the Church of the Virgin Mary in Girga. Year unknown. The gospel reading of today’s Liturgy, in which the Lord of Glory reveals and clarifies the manner in which the life of the believer must be on earth. The Church has well chosen to present to us, on the first Sunday of the Holy Fast, the selection that was read aloud in our hearing: this selection, in which the Lord Jesus says at its beginning: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” “but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19-20), as we have heard. And at the end of the selection, the Lord says: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).  “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”  The Lord Jesus, to whom be glory, teaches us in the gospel of today’s Liturgy, that we should not care about anything in this life more than we should, or more than our care about eternal life, because He taught us, saying: “What would it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? Or what would man give in exchange for his soul” (Matthew 16:26)? The Lord explains that the treasures that we lay up on earth are exposed to dangers. The first danger is theft and robbery, and the second danger is moths. The third danger is rust, [which] takes hold of the [substance] and corrodes it. And the grains that we lay up are eaten by moths. And gold is exposed to theft by thieves and robbers.  So these treasures, in which we place our trust, cannot save us from anything in this life, for they do not last forever. For man cannot take anything with him from the wealth of this world. Alexander the Great did well when he commanded, at his departure from this world, that his hands be exposed open outside his coffin, saying: “Let the whole world know that Alexander, who conquered the world, came out of the world empty-handed.” This is the life for which we fight — we cannot take anything from it.  So the Lord warns us that the treasures in which we trust in this life, we must leave behind, either willingly or unwillingly. This is what the Divine Revelation says on the mouth of Job the Righteous, when he says: “We know that we entered the world without anything, and we will leave it also without anything.” “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there” (Job 1:21a). And our teacher Paul the Apostle says: “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1 Timothy 6:7). We have not heard, and we will not hear, that a person can take with him money, or palaces, or gold, or silver. Rather, all he takes with him is a piece of cloth, in which he is wrapped and shrouded and placed in his final resting place.  But there is another work that he must take with him, because the life of man does not end with his death. The life of the body ends with death, while another life begins that differs from this life, for which we must lay up [treasures], as Christ, to whom be glory, says: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” “but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,” and as our teacher Paul the Apostle says: “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7b).  We do not take anything from the treasures we lay up, but what we offer here in this life on earth for the sake of the salvation of our souls is what we will find on the Last Day, as the Book taught us — the Revelator: “Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me, to give to every one according to his works” (Revelation 22:12), and as the Church says and repeats in every Liturgy: “[He will] give each one according to his deeds.” []  So here, life ends, but we begin a new life that differs [from it] in every respect. Here there is weeping, wailing, and worry, but there is eternal joy — the Lord “will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 21:4).  So the Lord teaches us not to lay up treasures on this earth, but that we must lay up treasures for the kingdom of heaven. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).  The Lord teaches us not to live lazily, or as we say in the fallah ’s expression, [“good-for-nothing”], but the Lord teaches us not to depend on anything in this life, because the worldly life does not benefit man at all, but what benefits him is dependence on God. So the Lord teaches us, saying: “Consider the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns” (Matthew 6:26).  In the Coptic translation, it does not say “birds,” but “crows.” And the wisdom in this text is stronger in the Coptic translation, because all birds are able to gather grains from the earth, and they strive to provide for themselves and their children, but only the crow does not give to its children []. Perhaps you see this in your homes! But the crow is the only one that is unable to feed its children! How do its children live? As soon as the chick comes out of the egg, the little crow opens its beak, a thread comes out of its beak, it opens its beak and eats from it, until our Lord provides for it, without its father or mother feeding it, our Lord provides for it until it is able to fly, roam, and seek its own provision.  So God says: “Consider the crows of the air, they do not sow” — it does not even say “crows,” but “chicks.” The Coptic translation says: “Look at the chicks of the crows,” meaning the little chick, unable to provide for itself, and after it comes out of the egg, its father and mother leave it, and our Lord provides for it. “Look at the chicks of the crows, they do not sow or reap or gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Matthew 6:26). He gives them their due!  God, as we say in the general saying, provides for the birds in the nests, and provides for the fish in the sea, and it is impossible for Him to create a mouth and leave it without provision. But the fault — all the fault — is in us, that we depend on our wealth and desire to be rich without the will of God. “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 22:10).  “Seek first the kingdom of God,” and all these matters our Lord arranges in a particular way. God cannot abandon you or neglect you! History provides us good examples of those who cared for God, so God cared for them.  [In] one of these [examples], our Lord dried up the sea, and he [Elijah] stood in front of our Lord and said to Him, people were hungry - - and He dried up the land, and there was no bread or food; and the rich, the Book says, “the rich grow poor and go hungry, but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing” (Psalm 34:11). And then he found no food, and he found no sustenance, and the land was dry, and God withheld the rain from the land, and then he shouted to Him and said to Him: “O Lord, there is no rain on the land. You commanded me to pray, and to stop the rain, and so the rain stopped, but what should I do?” He said to him: “Do not worry about it, Elijah.” “What will You do, O Lord?” He said to him: “I have commanded a poor, needy widow to support you.” “A poor, needy widow will support me? The rich ‘grow in hunger’ and pain from the severity of their hunger, and a widow will support me?” He said to him: “Just go to a small village called Zarephath, Sidon, and you will find a woman there gathering sticks” ( see  1 Kings 17:7-16). So the man of God went there and found her gathering some sticks, so he told her: “What are you doing?” [] She told him: “I am gathering sticks.” “For what?” She said: “I have a little bit of flour, I will make them into a cake for myself and a cake for” - - two small handfuls [of flour] - - “I will make them into a cake for myself and for my son and we will eat them and die.” Meaning there is no more [flour], and this is the last breath of life — a handful of flour. A handful.  He said to her: “Let me tell you, go make me a [cake] first.” “O man of God! I am telling you, a handful of flour, I will make it [into cakes] for myself and my boy and we will eat them and die. And you want me to make you one first?” He told her: “Just go! Depart and make for me a cake first, for thus says the Lord: ‘The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day [the Lord] sends rain on the land’ (1 Kings 17:14).” And so the woman, the poor widow, became very rich by the life of faith when she hosted the man of God.  God, who says “consider the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap,” or “the chicks of the crows of the air, for they neither sow nor reap,” He is the one who sustains us. He sustains completely! A story in the history of the Church, which I recall telling previously: Anba Paula and his brother had a falling-out. While he was walking out, he saw a great, honorable man who had died and was being processed on their shoulders. So he asked: “What was this man?” [They] told him: “This was one of the noblemen of the city, an exceedingly great man.” “Then what happened?” “Then he died and you see the great scene of this funeral procession to his final resting place.” So he looked and said: “Oh! I am begrudging my brother over transient matters, while this rich man left this world empty-handed, not being able to hold onto anything from this life, of worldly wealth, with him, and he went to the hereafter while I do not know whether he offered or did not offer anything good.” So he went out without hesitation, and there he entered an abandoned tomb and began to worship God, saying to Him: “O Lord, guide me to the path in which I can be pleasing to You.” And the result was that the angel of God carried away the saint Anba Paula and took him to a spring of water that had a palm tree, and the great saint Anba Paula lived from the fruit of the palm tree all year long, and then every day the crow brought him half a loaf [of bread]. Every day it brought him half a loaf [of bread]. And when Anba Antonios visited him, and the time of dinner came, the crow brought down a full loaf [of bread], and they shared it together. Can you believe that until this time, in the monastery of Anba Paula, only a crow and its wife live. When they give birth, they leave the monastery and go to the monastery of Anba Antonios, because there are many palm trees there, and [the chicks] remain. And when a guest comes, ten or fifteen minutes before he arrives, the crow begins to make noise so the monks know that a visitor is coming. And this is so that God might uphold the continuous remembrance - - “the remembrance of the righteous shall abide forever” (Psalm 112:6) - - the remembrance of the crow that brought the bread to the saint Anba Paula.  So we can say that all these things - - the Book says: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” What is it that will be added to me? He says, “seek first the kingdom of God,” and then “all these things will be added to you.” The things of the world will be added. What is it that will be added?  Long ago, when we were young, a person’s mother at home used to tell him — those days were not as they are now [] — “go, son, get a [bar of] soap from the shop [or] go get a measure of sugar.” The shopkeeper would be clever: after he would give him the measure of the product, whether he wanted a [bar of] soap or some tea or some sugar, he would give him a piece of candy or a couple of beans “on the house.” A snare cast by the shopkeeper so the boy, whenever he wanted anything, would come to him to buy it for the sake of those beans! But are the two beans, or the piece of candy that he gave to the boy, the original sale? Or are they “on the house?” On the house! He has already gotten the sale!  So the whole world — the world and all that is in it — seek first the original sale, which is the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and this whole world, which does not equal even two beans or some candy, He will give you! This whole world, in the eyes of God, is nothing!  “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”  I remember long ago, in the year [19]41, there was a man, God rest his soul, named Khay Habib Estafanous, in Samalot, and I suppose his wife may still be alive until this day. And I mentioned this in the book about Abouna Abdelmassih. See, it was myself and someone named Fr. Abdel-Salus al-Habashy, and the man invited us, saying: “Come.” “Why?” He said: “[My wife] is sick; pray for her so that God might heal her.” “Sure, alright.” And then he said: “This basket of bread here is our only one, and the baker refuses to come, and [my wife] is sick and cannot bake.” “What have we to do with the bread basket?” - - you know those from al-Minya bake wide bread that lasts one or two months, and when they come to eat of it, they pour a little water over it and eat it - - “what have we to do with [it]?” He said: “Pray! It is the blessing of Christ in the five loaves! Did not Christ bless the five loaves and the two fish?” “Yes he blessed!” He said: “Is not the Christ of the past the same as the one of today?” We said to him: “Yes, yesterday, today, and forever.” He said: “So pray for me that God will bless these loaves.”  We prayed for him — I myself was a young, novice monk, and I thought in my mind that this man was [deeply imaginative]. But the father who was with me was an elder and an ascetic, a man who had experience in life, who was praying deeply, but while I was praying with the father, in my mind the man was [deeply imaginative]. See what happened! We prayed and left. And those [loaves] in the basket were just enough to last a day, or a day and a half at most. We were absent for two months and then I and Abouna Abdel-Salus passed by again []. He said: “Come eat of the loaves you prayed over!” “What loaves? Do they still remain?” He said: “They remain and can last for even longer and longer []!”  “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 22:10).  I was in a monastery named the Monastery of al-Fakhoury, near Esna, and I was spending the night there. And we had at most two or three measures of flour. And we had to celebrate Liturgy in the morning. And I found a group of visitors came to me, and we did not have but some lentils. They did not bring with them a sacrifice [i.e. a lamb or sheep] and they did not bring bread. So there was there with me Abouna Ghattas, who is now in Edfu [], and there was [a man] also named Ghattas with us, so I told him: “Ghattas, where will we get bread for these people? Will they eat without bread?” [] We said: “Let us cook the lentils, since there is water. But after we cook the lentils, then what? Will they drink the lentils [] without bread?” [] So I told him: “Listen, split the two measures of flour in half. Make half into three or four korbanat  [offertory loaves] — enough for the morning’s offering — and the other half make into some thin, small pieces [of bread], put them in the oven, and we will break them and say: ‘We don’t have bread, just eat of these.’”  Believe me, perhaps three or four small pieces, each of which might equal a fourth of a korbana - - even less, not even a fifth! - - we flattened them like paper and put them in the oven and then pulled them out and I broke them and said: “May the blessing of the Lord which dwelt in the five loaves and the two fish bless these.” That day, we were six people, and we sat and ate until we were full and there were even leftovers!  “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 22:10).  Christ says in the gospel of today’s Liturgy: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The fallahi  expression is: “The foot steps where it wills.” [الرجل تدب محل ما تحب]. He who loves corruption chases after corruption. He who loves work chases after work. He who loves profit chases after profit. He who loves the Lord chases after the Lord. And every one’s foot goes, or steps, to where he loves.  As for you, what do you love? “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be.” If your treasure [] is the earth, God is not present in your life. Christ says as much: “No one can serve God and mammon” ( see Matthew 6:24b), in the gospel of today’s Liturgy. God and mammon. God and mammon cannot both occupy one’s heart. What? Does this mean that the Lord desires that we become beggars, poor, and needy? No! But the Lord wants us to depend on Him firstly! Not on money! Dependence on Him firstly!  The young rich man, when He told him, “go, sell all that you have” (Mark 10:21), the disciples told Him: “These are difficult words.” He told them: “Children, how hard it is for those who depend [on riches] to enter” (Mark 10:24) — how difficult it is for those who depend — those who depend on riches! Not the rich, but those who depend on their wealth!  He who depends on his wealth is a pagan. He who relies on his money worships idols. Wealth is not vice, but it is goodness and a blessing from God on the condition that it is according to God’s will.  Sometimes, when the love of money takes hold of one’s mind and heart, it makes him forget the Lord. How? The love of money, not wealth! Wealth is one thing, and the love of money is another. The wealth granted to me by God, of which I offer to the churches and the Lord and the poor and needy, is a blessing. Job was wealthy, and Abraham was wealthy. But the love of money is all evil. The Apostle says: “The love of money is a root of all evils, which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:10).  “Have been led astray from the faith.” How were they led astray from the faith? The love of money teaches lying, teaches greed, teaches grasping, [] and teaches one to take what is not rightfully his, and to forget the Lord and place all of his concern in money, such that he is converted from a worshiper of God to a worshiper of money. Not on the condition that I prostrate to money — placing it in front of me and prostrating before it. But placing in my heart the love of money, and thinking to myself: is God or money in my heart? The saying goes: “The heart cannot accommodate two.” God and money do not agree. Light and darkness cannot coexist in one place.  If the love of money has dominion over you more than the love of God, then you are a worshiper of idols. But if the love of God predominates your feelings more than the love of money, if God gave you some portion of money, then it is a great blessing that you give and tell Him: “Of your own we have given you” (1 Chronicles 29:14b). “What you have given us, we have given you.”  Do you really grasp for the world and believe that the money you have is yours? Do you think it is yours? It is a blessing from God. “He makes poor and makes rich” (1 Samuel 2:7a). He “kills and gives life” (1 Samuel 2:6a). He sickens and heals ( see Job 5:18). This is a gift offered to you by God! He has made you a steward over this entrustment. Are you a traitor or are you faithful? Determine your position. Are you a traitor or faithful to God in the entrustment He has given you?  A traitor does not give our Lord anything. Our Lord has given him, but he refuses to give our Lord of the gift He has given him. This is a traitor. But from the money God gave you, you give Him and say to Him: “From your money, we have given You.” So you will be found faithful in what God has given you. “There is no gift without increase save that which is [received] without thanksgiving” (Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies  2).  A gift that does not increase is devoid of thanksgiving. A gift that decreases is devoid of thanksgiving. A gift that increases has thanksgiving. What is thanksgiving? Does it mean eating, filling my stomach, and saying: “Thank You, Lord?” No. No! “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 7:21). But we offer thanks to God in deed. In deed. In good deeds! In kindness towards the poor and needy. Give God what is rightful[ly His], “give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, and what is God’s to God” (Matthew 22:21).  The Lord teaches us “seek first the kingdom of God.” Why? [] Firstly, one must seek the kingdom of God for a reason: he is a stranger on earth — a guest — and must inevitably leave the world. Has anyone taken anything with him? Has anyone taken a house? Has anyone taken a mansion? Has anyone taken money? So [he is] a stranger, and the stranger must leave. It is inevitable that he travels. Whether he wants to or not, he will leave. So he offers here what will profit him there, in the hereafter! He offers here what will benefit him in the afterlife. He will be surprised by the other life. If a man offers here, he will find there all that he offers here.  God says that He does not forget a cup of cold water ( see Matthew 10:42). Meaning if you offer a cup of cold water to a thirsty man, it is counted for you with God. It is counted. What more if you offer more than a cup of water? So God teaches us to seek first His kingdom. This kingdom is inevitable. And the kingdom of heaven is an eternal kingdom that has no end.  We will be confronted with a truth in the end. There is no way around it. What is it? We will be confronted either with an eternal life or a miserable life. Either a life crowned with glory or a life full of torment. “Fire that cannot be quenched and worm that does not sleep” ( see  Mark 9:48).  When Paul the Apostle thought about and contemplated the eternal life — the life of eternal bliss — and saw and perceived, he said: “I counted everything as rubbish.” Why? “To gain Christ” (Philippians 3:8). This whole world is rubbish, to gain Christ. Why are you saying this, Paul? He said: “I saw with my own eyes. I heard with my own ears.” What did you see with your own eyes? He said: “I know a man who was in the body, I do not know, or out of the body, I do not know.” What about him? He said: “He ascended to the third heaven.” What did he see? He said: “He saw what eyes did not see and what ears did not hear and what did not enter the heart of man what God has prepared for” whom? “For those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). For those who have taken eternity into account. For those who took the kingdom of God into account. What these planted here, they will reap there. What they offered here, they will [receive] there. So when Paul the Apostle felt and saw the glories and the thrones on which the saints were seated, and the spiritual, luminous, heavenly bliss in the eternal life, he said: “I counted all things as rubbish so that I might gain Christ.”  Christ teaches us in the gospel of today’s Liturgy to lay up for ourselves firstly treasures in heaven, where no corrupting agent can reach them, and He taught us that where our treasure is, there our heart will be also. And He said: “If your eye is simple, your whole body will be full of light. And if your eye is evil, your whole body will be evil, dark” ( see Matthew 6:22). Meaning if your heart is evil, then you have no goodness towards God. The evil heart cannot do good! It is entirely evil, from its beginning to its end. Because God says on the mouth of Isaiah: “There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked” (Isaiah 57:21).  By the “good heart” He does not mean the eye. He means perception. There is sight and there is perception. Sight is [through] the eye, but perception is [through] the heart that God gave to man. “My son, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways” (Proverbs 23:26), and “above all, guard your heart, for from it flow all the springs of life” (Proverbs 4:23).  So the Lord teaches us that our gaze and our direction and our thinking and all our feelings must be towards the eternal life, knowing that we are strangers and will travel, and will inevitably reap what we offer here, because “God is not unjust to forget [your work and] labor of love” (Hebrews 6:10).  [Here, His Eminence congratulates his congregation on the beginning of Great Lent, urges them to arrive early to the Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and prays for them to receive blessings, good health, comfort, and healing, and to experience a holy and blessed Fast.] — Original Arabic Recording: https://app.box.com/s/c7rdw3lxvsxmudmzkxjv9u619apiway4 His Eminence Metropolitan Mina of Girga, a contemporary Coptic Orthodox saint, was born in Nag-Hammadi, Egypt in May 1919, and entered the monastic life on April 30, 1939 at the monastery of St. Macarius in Wadi al-Natrun. On November 18, 1939, he was ordained to the priesthood and named Fr. Luka, and in 1943, he was elevated to the rank of hegumen and appointed the monastery's secretary. After completing his theological studies at the Clerical College, Fr. Luka was appointed the personal secretary of His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI. Shortly thereafter, his father of confession, Fr. Abdel-Messih al-Maqari — another modern Coptic Orthodox saint — predicted that Fr. Luka would be ordained to the episcopacy, and on August 7, 1960, this came to pass. His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI ordained Fr. Luka as Bishop Mina to oversee the diocese of Girga, Bahjoura, and Farshut; he would later receive the rank of Metropolitan. Metropolitan Mina was renowned for his great piety, deep love, consecration to the service of the Church, innumerable virtues, miracle-working, and life of incessant prayer and prolonged fasting. He received the eskeem — the highest honor in the monastic life, which required increased fasting, prostrations, and spiritual canons — and was said by those who knew him to have been among those who are spirit-borne. On November 7, 2003, Metropolitan Mina departed after a long struggle with illness, and was buried in the church of his teacher, Fr. Abdel-Messih al-Maqari, in Girga. Cover Image: Metropolitan Mina of Girga, pictured on February 28, 1969 (Image Original).

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

“What did I do to deserve this?” is a sentence commonly heard when someone experiences a particularly bad event in their life. These thoughts stem from some concept of “Godly wrath come upon us” or the incorrect idea of some sort of “karmic” retribution. In pondering suffering and why one must suffer, a consensus seems to emerge from many Church fathers which outlines suffering as an excellent example of experiencing, or learning, the higher ways of God. St. Athanasius of Alexandria writes “Let us then be comforted in our afflictions and rejoice in our sufferings, for the Lord did not come to free us from suffering, but to teach us to bear it with faith, hope, and love, and thus attain eternal life.” [1] Sergius of Radonezh, a medieval Russian Orthodox ascetic, is also commonly quoted as saying: “If you want to serve God, prepare your heart not for food, not for drink, not for rest, not for ease, but for suffering, so that you may endure all temptations, trouble and sorrow. Prepare for severities, fasts, spiritual struggles and many afflictions, for ‘by many afflictions is it appointed to us to enter the Kingdom of Heaven’ [2] ; ‘The Heavenly Kingdom is taken by force, and those who use force seize it.’ [3] ”   In the Old Testament, suffering was often viewed as evidence of the wrath of God. Job, being the operative example, endured the scrutiny of his friends who wrongly attributed his loss of all things to his unrighteousness, due to a simplistic understanding of chastisement and prosperity. Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends, therefore says to Job in one instance: “Is not your wickedness great, and your iniquity without end?” [4] The tension of struggle and faithfulness in the character of Job profoundly draws out a beautiful perspective on the love of God, who would in the fullness of time take flesh and suffer unto death out of His love for mankind, freely and without compulsion. Just as Job was led into a deeper relation of love with God through suffering, so also does God invite us to a deeper relation with Himself through His own suffering on our behalf. In this, then, it is evident that the fullness of love — the Trinitarian Love — is that which accepts suffering even when it is unjust, transforming the experience of suffering into an expression of perfect love: “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” [5]   Through the trial of Job, suffering is understood as a means by which the elect may draw nearer to God and grow in conformity to Him. Another aspect of suffering likewise emerges in the Scriptures: often, the Israelites are permitted to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles as chastisement for their going astray from God’s commandments, “for whom the Lord loves He chastens.” [6] However, the chastisement of the elect, being for the sake of their repentance, ought not be conflated with the idea that God simply ascribes punishment on the ungodly. This was the misunderstanding of Job’s friends, which the Lord Jesus Christ corrects both by His words and living example — He, the sinless Lord, who endures suffering and tastes death on behalf of mankind.   When the Lord and His disciples encounter the man born blind, the disciples ask Him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” [7] Christ’s response is, put simply, unexpected: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.” [8] This idea, that this man’s suffering — his sickness — did not result from sinful activity, challenged their flawed assumption and ushered in a redeemed apprehension of the mercy and justice of God. In addition to preaching that “the last shall be first” [9] and that the poor shall inherit the Kingdom, [10] this encounter with the born-blind man became one of many instances where Christ confronted the contemporary Jewish misinterpretations of the ways of God and further uncovered the understanding of how the Lord blesses His children with suffering as a means by which they can take up a role in His salvific work, a teaching which He would Himself embody through His journey to the Cross and Resurrection. This conversation with the disciples was therefore a planting of a seed — an assertion that by way of suffering, one may share the Gospel and grow in conformity to the Lord Jesus Christ.   The practicality of this message which the Lord exemplified is perhaps most evident in the experience and mission of the Apostle Paul. St. Paul speaks of suffering often and chooses to suffer in order to be counted a minister in the service of God. He describes his many sufferings: “From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” [11]   Despite these unimaginable sufferings, directly resulting from his preaching of the Gospel, we nevertheless hear his assuring words: “Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” [12]   St. Paul furthers this understanding of suffering elsewhere, writing: “[W]e are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building,” [13] and so “ the sufferings of this present time are not worthy  to be compared  with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” [14]  Evidently, then, this glory that God should reveal in us is realized through the sufferings which the believers endure, as a catalyst. [15]  St. John Chrysostom muses in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 4 that the uniqueness of the suffering of the Apostles is that “they are suffering without despair or anger. On the contrary they are full of rejoicing, and they prove it by returning good for the evil they receive.” [16]   The Coptic Orthodox Church is no stranger to the concept of suffering as a means of witnessing to the glory of God. She is heralded as being “the Church of the martyrs” and arranges her days according to the calendrical system anno martyrum (“year of the martyrs”). From the martyrdom of the Church’s first Patriarch, St. Mark the Evangelist, until today, martyrdom has become characteristic of the tradition, spirituality, and identity of the Coptic Orthodox Church, being delivered intergenerationally. Moreover, the powerful witness of the suffering Christians is made abundantly clear in the hagiographical account, in the Coptic Synaxarium, of Arianus the governor of Ansina, who was the likely cause of an innumerable number of the martyrdoms recorded in the Synaxarium, and who was led to conversion through seeing the joyful suffering of God’s people. [17] Martyrdom, in the Orthodox understanding, is understood as a high calling and honor, constituting a powerful conformity to Christ: as the Lord died for our sake, the martyr, in turn, offers his life to Christ and, in like manner, dies for His sake. St. Athanasius the Apostolic therefore speaks highly of martyrdom, considering the martyrs as being among the most powerful testimonies to the truth of the Christian message. [18]  The great Abba Antony, likewise, is described as pursuing martyrdom, finding it even sufficient, if he were not called to martyrdom, to “look on the contestants.” [19] It is further described: “. . . he was praying that he, too, might be martyred. Therefore, he also appeared grieved that he did not suffer martyrdom. . . . When the persecution finally ceased and Bishop Peter of blessed memory had suffered martyrdom, [Antony] left and went back to his solitary cell; and there he was a daily martyr to his conscience, even fighting the battles of the Faith.” [20]  The consideration of suffering for the sake of Christ as being an honor remains ever-present in the Church and is palpably felt even in the experiences of modern-day saints. One cannot forget the powerful and unwavering testimony of the 21 martyrs of Libya. It was also narrated regarding the saintly Tamav Irene that she, like Antony the Great, longed to suffer for the sake of God, and having not been called to martyrdom by Him, continued steadfastly in the life of daily martyrdom through asceticism. [21]  Indeed, a definitive mark of properly internalized spirituality is to approach suffering as an honor and glory to God, offering thanks to God in return for any suffering endured for His sake. [22]   A most profound aspect of suffering is its facilitation of an opportunity to become a fellow sharer in the sufferings of the Lord Christ. In suffering, the believer realizes a profound solidarity with the Lord and is able to incorporate that experience of suffering into their Christian experience. Russian Orthodox theologian Theophan the Recluse captures this perspective well, writing: “Remember that each of us has his own cross. The Golgotha of this cross is our heart: it is being lifted or implanted through a zealous determination to live according to the Spirit of God. Just as salvation of the world is by the Cross of God, so our salvation is by our crucifixion on our own cross.” [23]   While Christ challenged the misunderstanding that a person’s suffering is necessarily due to particular sins, it is nevertheless clear that suffering was introduced  into the human condition through the sin and fall of Adam and Eve. [24]  On the holy wood of the Cross, through His suffering and ultimate death, the Lord transformed this condition into one of blessing, recapitulating man and offering to him the remission of sin(s) and renewal of nature through baptism, which is the putting on of Christ. [25] The ultimate goal of life on earth, then, becomes growth and perfection in Christ: “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” [26]  This timeless truth of Christianity is embodied in the ritual theology of the Coptic Orthodox Church. For instance, in the prayers which immediately precede the communion in the Eucharist, the priest proclaims: “the Holies are for the holies!” Truly, it is only through Him who is Holy that the believers can approach the Eucharist worthily. The believers become the people of God through unity with Him and in Him: “And we ask You, O Lord our God . . . that Your Holy Spirit descend upon us and upon these gifts set forth [the Eucharist], and purify them, change them, and manifest them as a sanctification of Your saints.” [27]  In the sense that the Eucharist is understood as the fruits of the sufferings of Christ, it follows that to have a share in Him and in His sufferings is to enjoy unity with Him.   Moreover, it is common for believers, when they are faced with trials and hardships, to feel as though they are undeserving of such misfortunes. In his Letters to Olympias , St. John Chrysostom offers a new outlook: “Nothing, Olympias, redounds so much to the credit of any one as patient endurance in suffering. For this is indeed the queen of virtues, and the perfection of crowns; and as it excels all other forms of righteousness, so this particular species of it is more glorious than the rest.” [28]  Through suffering, we have the opportunity to cultivate many virtues, and the despair that may be engendered in us through hardship can rather become a means for glorification. This paradoxical perspective — of the opportunities and growth which suffering may occasion — may seem, at first glance, to be illogical. Rather, we are assured by the Apostle Paul that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men,” [29]  and that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” [30]   Such a perspective regarding suffering warrants deep reflection. While humanity is not sinless, spotless, or a perfect Lamb to be offered as a sacrifice, can it nevertheless approximate God through suffering? Despite being marred by sin, can humanity, through suffering unjustly, return to the Image of God — He who was falsely accused for our sake, who prayed for the cup to be taken from Him, [31]  and who did not lose all, but chose  to come down from His throne as King of Kings and had no place to lay His head? [32] Can suffering in this world, no matter how minute, amount to a share in His suffering? Can one’s suffering be likened to Simone of Cyrene carrying the Lord’s Cross with Him [33]   — an unimaginable blessing? Can one not think of each of our hardships as likewise carrying the cross of the Lord one step closer to Golgotha, knowing that ultimately, it is still He who suffers death on our behalf? Can one not know joy in His resurrection? For this reason, let us bear in mind — to be blessed is to suffer. — [1] St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms  (4th Century). [2] Acts 14:22 NKJV (Hereinafter, all Scriptural references are taken from the New King James Version). [3] Matthew 11:12. [4] Job 22:5. [5] John 15:13. [6] Hebrews 12:6-11; see also  Revelation 3:19. [7] John 9:1-2. [8] John 9:3. [9] Matthew 20:16. [10] Matthew 5:3, Luke 6:20. [11]  2 Corinthians 11:24-28. [12] 2 Corinthians 12:9-10. [13] 1 Corinthians 3:9. [14] Romans 8:18. [15]  See e.g., Romans 8:18-31. [16] St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4  . [17]  I hope the pun of Arianus and seeing was not lost on you. [18]  See  St. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation , para. 28. [19] St. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Antony , para. 46. [20]  Ibid ., 46-47. [21]  See Saint Mary & Anba Bishoy Coptic Orthodox Church, Tamav Ireni  (November 17, 2012). [22] “If you bear your sufferings with thankfulness, this is greater than performing miracles” (St. Isaac the Syrian, The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian , Homily 5). [23] Theophan the Recluse, Thoughts for Each Day of the Year According to the Daily Church Readings from the Word of God . [24]  See Genesis 3. [25]  S ee e.g. , Romans 13:14. [26]  Colossians 1:28. [27]  The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil of Caesarea: The Epiclesis. [28] St. John Chrysostom, Letters to Olympias , Letter II. [29] 1 Corinthians 1:25. [30]  1 Corinthians 1:18. [31] Matthew 26:39. [32] Revelation 17:14; Matthew 8:20 . [33] Luke 23:26 . — Hilana Said is a Coptic Orthodox Christian and a licensed attorney. She graduated from Albany Law School in 2023. Hilana developed a love for academic reading and writing during her time on the Executive Board of the Albany Law Review. Her deep faith and Coptic Orthodox heritage play an integral role in her personal and professional life and serve as constant inspiration for her academic pursuits. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

In engaging with the political process, especially around election season, people are often drawn into and held captive by partisan politics and issue-based voting. Beneath the loud noises of specific policies and candidates’ personalities are worldviews and philosophies that animate not just the candidates, but also political movements and historical trends. This article aims to provide the reader with a conceptual framework by which to engage more thoughtfully with, and look more deeply into, the whys that underpin the political process and their implications, to the end of understanding in a nuanced manner the interplay between the Church, politics, and civic duty. Two Visions: Constrained and Unconstrained One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. [1]  One explanation may be tribalism and that the same people fall in line once a view is declared from the upper echelons of political party leadership. But even tribalism does not explain why political platforms and their leadership also stay consistent on the same issues. It is more plausible that the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues because they have different visions of the world. A vision is the map by which we navigate the world and perceive reality. Facts do not speak for themselves; rather it is facts interpreted through a vision that allows us to understand the world. “Visions set the agenda for both thought and action. Visions fill in the necessarily large gaps in individual knowledge.” [2] Two competing visions of the human condition will necessarily dictate different moral judgments and, consequently, public policies. Thomas Sowell categorizes visions in two broad categories: constrained and unconstrained. [3] The constrained vision is articulated in the writings of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and American founding fathers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, while the unconstrained vision is expressed in the writings of William Godwin, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, and the Marquis de Condorcet. A. Views on the Human Condition In the constrained vision, the moral limitations of humanity are treated as inherent facts of life, and the fundamental moral and social challenge is to make the best of the possibilities that exist within these limitations. [4] People are naturally motivated by self-interest and the interest(s) of their immediate social circles. Instead of regarding man’s nature as something that could or should be changed, proponents of the constrained vision attempt to determine how the desired moral and social benefits might be realized most efficiently within that constraint. [5] For instance, those who subscribe to the constrained vision would harness man’s self-interest and desire for prosperity by establishing a marketplace characterized by competition to induce economic growth in society at large. They would not encourage people to be more charitable or impose taxes for the general benefit of the poor in an attempt to reduce inequality because they view such efforts as improper and futile. [6] The constrained vision is in the business of pragmatic trade-offs as opposed to moral sentiments or spiritual motivations. Instead of teaching people to be virtuous, proponents of the constrained vision, such as Adam Smith, get the job done by persuading individuals to do the right thing because self-image is improved by good deeds. In contrast, proponents of the unconstrained vision believe that man, at his core, is intrinsically good and capable of acting selflessly, but the fundamental problem is that social institutions corrupt human nature. Near the end of his life, Rousseau authored Emile and stated that “[t]his book…is simply a treatise on the natural goodness of man, intended to show how vice and error are foreign to his constitution, invade it from outside, and imperceptibly alter it.” [7] By way of example, Rousseau writes in his Confessions  that his master treated him badly, so he started lying and became lazy; his father punished him rather too harshly, and this made him both manipulative and covetous. [8] Rousseau saw that his intrinsic goodness was corrupted by his circumstances and thus blamed society for his delinquency. [9] The unconstrained vision further holds that despite corrupting institutions, man has the potential of feeling other people’s needs as more important than his own, and therefore of consistently acting impartially, even when his own interests or those of his family are implicated. [10] Thus, institution-made corruption can simply be undone by reformed institutions as envisioned by a narrow segment of the population with cultivated minds who use rationality and reason as the proper and sufficient instrument for regulating the actions of mankind. [11] As such, man can be wildly transformed: Man is, in short, ‘perfectible’ – meaning continually improvable rather than capable of actually reaching absolute perfection. ‘We can come nearer and nearer,’ according to Godwin, though one ‘cannot prescribe limits’ to this process … Efforts must be made to ‘wake the sleeping virtues of mankind.’ [12] B. Knowledge and Reason The two visions also diverge on knowledge and reason: “In the constrained vision, any individual’s own knowledge alone is grossly inadequate for social decision-making, and often even for his own personal decisions.” [13] Knowledge in the constrained vision is predominantly experiential – transmitted socially in largely inarticulate forms. As Adam Smith stated, “man has certainly more often learnt to do the right thing without comprehending why it was the right thing, and he still is better served by custom than understanding.” [14] Burke expressed a similar sentiment, stating: I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation, and which indeed are so worked into my mind, that I am unable to distinguish what I have learned from others from the results of my own meditations. [15] The constrained vision thereby places a high premium on experience learned over time across wide populations encompassed in previous generations – in sum, tradition. However, these views do not preclude interference when severe corruption enters the system: “We should attend to the defects of the social order, according to Burke, with the same trepidation with which we would tend the wounds of our father. They are not to be ignored, but neither are they a mandate for experiment or hasty inspiration.” [16]   The unconstrained vision, on the other hand, values reason over experience and individual rationality over collective pragmatism: “According to Godwin, experience was greatly overrated – ‘unreasonably magnified,’ in his words – compared to reason or to ‘the general power of a cultivated mind.’” [17] Condorcet similarly stated that “everything that bears the imprint of time must inspire distrust more than respect” and “only by meditation that we can arrive at any general truths in the science of man.” [18] As such, the unconstrained vision implies a profound inequality between the conclusions of “persons of narrow views” and those of “cultivated minds.” [19] The influence of those with “cultivated minds” ought to be magnified: “What is needed is to infuse ‘just views of society’ into ‘the liberally educated and reflecting members’ of society, who in turn will be ‘to the people guides and instructors,’ according to Godwin.” [20] There is a special leadership role to be played by those of “superior intellects” who can lead society and serve as agents of transformation within institutions in order to discover or invent a solution for the human condition and bring about the process of “perfectibility” described by Condorcet and Godwin. [21] To be clear, no political movement or philosophical view is 100% constrained or unconstrained. But the general disposition of the two categories depends on premises and presuppositions about the human condition and knowledge from which perceptions of reality and decision-making proceed. For instance, a “constrained” politician may propose legislation to incentivize entrepreneurship even though incentivizing action through law is a feature of the unconstrained vision. Similarly, a politician with an unconstrained vision marries and has children without contemplating the essence of marriage or rationalizing his decisions, a clear deviation from the unconstrained school of thought. Is Christianity Constrained or Unconstrained? Christianity does not fall squarely into one of these categories. For instance, the Christian view of knowledge aligns well with the constrained vision. A hallmark of Christianity is respect and reverence for tradition and wisdom learned and transmitted by past generations. As expressed in Proverbs, “Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.” [22] A core premise underlying large segments of the Bible is precisely the need to transmit lessons across the ages. [23] “My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother; For they  will be  a graceful ornament on your head, And chains about your neck.” [24] The Gospel according to St. Luke begins with a similar message: Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,   that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. [25] Burke’s statement “I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation…” rings very familiar to finely tuned Christian ears. Ignoring the wisdom of past generations in favor of personal meditations and rationalizing well-established practices is, according to Proverbs, the definition of foolishness: “A fool despises his father’s instruction, but he who receives correction is prudent.” [26] While Christianity aligns with the constrained vision on knowledge, it takes aspects of both visions when dealing with the human condition. On one hand, like the constrained vision, Christianity views the human condition as fundamentally flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. As St. Athanasius states in On the Incarnation , the fall of man was separation from God that resulted in physical, spiritual, and moral death. [27] The moral death is what proponents of the constrained vision view as the flaw in human nature. On the other hand, similar to the unconstrained vision, Christianity views the human condition as “perfectible,” but with a significant caveat. While the unconstrained vision aims to improve the nature of the masses through reformed institutions, public policy, and social pressures, Christianity changes individuals through divine means. Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion – indeed, His entire “salvific work” – reconciled heaven and earth and provided Christians, through Baptism, the forgiveness of sin and renewal of nature by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to walk in accordance with “the calling by which [they] were called.” [28]  Thus the commandment to “be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect” [29] cannot come about through mere human efforts, reform, or public policy, but through the grace of God, a sound sacramental life, discipleship, prayer, fasting, and the life of virtue and other good works. In short, the quest for perfection without Christ is futile. Therefore, while Christianity has more in common with the constrained model, it does not align perfectly with either vision. Christianity, specifically Orthodoxy, values tradition and is generally apprehensive of unwarranted change. However, the Christian view of the human condition does not entirely align with the constrained vision because there is potential to change human nature through Christ’s salvific work. Neither does Christianity fully align with the unconstrained vision because human nature is fundamentally flawed post-fall and because the quest for perfection cannot be achieved solely through worldly institutions, policies, or compulsion. Caesar v. God According to Sowell, progressive politics are aligned with the unconstrained vision, while conservative/libertarian frameworks are more aligned with the constrained vision. [30] This essay does not specifically identify political parties with either vision. Political parties are vehicles for ideologies that aim to implement public policy and law in line with their members’ and leadership’s worldviews. So, political parties are prone to seismic shifts, which have arguably seen a significant uptick in recent times. Also, similar to individuals, political parties may be constrained on one political issue but unconstrained on another. [31] Christians are generally viewed as conservatives because of their respect for tradition – a feature Christianity shares with the constrained vision.  However, as explained above, neither political philosophy – and no political party – possesses a complete understanding of the human condition and life’s most perplexing questions. They are simply incapable of addressing existential issues such as suffering, purpose, justice, human flourishing, or any of life’s other central questions. These types of issues are unanswerable by mere political philosophies because they belong in the realm of theology, not politics or secular philosophy. The solution to this quandary is to “[r]ender therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [32] Christians ought to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s by being good, law-abiding citizens and productive members of society. And here it is essential to note that the call to “render unto Caesar” does not mean that Christians are to adopt a morally libertarian stance when making personal (or even electoral) decisions; nor does it mean that secularism and immorality should be acceptable to Christians as long as they are handed down from governing bodies in the form of legal mandates. To the contrary, Christians are supposed, on an individual level, to vote, live, and believe in accordance with their moral compass, in good conscience – the same right to which everyone else in a religiously diverse society is entitled. Additionally, because neither vision (and by extension no political party) fits squarely within a proper Christian framework, the Church cannot, and must not, endorse wholesale political parties or candidates. The Church, however, finds itself in an understandably difficult position in the current political climate because morality has come to be seriously intertwined with politics and Caesar has reached into the domain of God. In recent years, debate stages and newsrooms have become forums for moral issues masquerading as administrative matters and public policy considerations. Mundane tax policies and subsidies inevitably have become discussions on the importance of equality, charity, and fairness. Border policy and immigration reform have turned into debates about the intrinsic worth of human beings and alleviating suffering for the persecuted. Godwin’s vision of man’s perfectibility through continuous improvement so “we can come nearer and nearer…” has become conflated with Gregory of Nyssa’s view that “no limit would interrupt growth in the ascent to God, since no limit to the Good can be found nor is the increasing of desire for the Good brought to an end because it is satisfied.” [33] And so Caesar added a cassock to his royal regalia, and mass confusion reigned. Perhaps the foray of politics into morality came about due to the decreased religiosity of the American public: “Americans’ membership in houses of worship continued to decline [in 2020], dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup’s eight-decade trend.” [34] Additionally, over the past two decades, “the percentage of Americans who do not identify with any religion has grown from 8% in 1998-2000 to 13% in 2008-2010 and 21% [from 2018 to 2021].” [35] Furthermore, Americans’ confidence in the Church and organized religious institutions declined to 46% among republicans, 25% among independents, and 26% among democrats. [36] This is a significant decline in confidence across the board from previous years. [37] Traditionally, religion provided people with community, a sense of purpose, and an arena to practice and grow in virtue. When religion disappears, people attempt to fill the spiritual void with the crumbs they can find. In 1840, Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw that material wealth, safety, and prosperity – all of which are abundant today – are not enough to satisfy humanity: The soul has needs that must be satisfied. Whatever pains are taken to distract it from itself, it soon grows bored, restless, and anxious amid the pleasures of the senses. If ever the thoughts of the great majority of mankind came to be concentrated solely on the search for material blessings, one can anticipate that there would be a colossal reaction in the souls of men… [38] Of course, before Tocqueville, Christ Himself declared that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” [39] The Coptic Church expresses this beautifully in the Liturgy of St. Gregory saying: “You had no need of my servitude, but rather I had need of Your Lordship.” The void left by the lack of religiosity is currently being filled through politics animated by the unconstrained vision (sometimes on both sides of the aisle) that aims to alleviate suffering and inequality through legislation and political rhetoric, as opposed to inner transformation through spiritual means. [40] Christians should distinguish the proper role of government from the proper domain of the Church and be faithful in their duty to both. The Church is responsible for transforming the believers from within and harnessing moral virtue and charity within its members. It does so through God’s grace and the sacramental life, thereby allowing the believers to have true love, joy, peace, and all the other fruits of the Spirit. [41] The Church must therefore reclaim its role as moral teacher by providing proper theological education to its leaders and members. Most crucially, Christian families must reclaim their role in raising their children, because the Church’s mission to educate each generation is bound to fail without sound education and discipline, beginning in the family. St. Habib Girgis, the founder of the Sunday School movement in Egypt, had especially harsh words for parents who ignore raising their children or attempt to outsource their education to others: “How stupid are the parents who overwork to build wealth but ignore raising their own children. St. John Chrysostom likened them to a stupid gardener who pays attention to accumulating money and hiring laborers and does not care for his trees and gardens.” [42] To be clear, the Church should not involve itself in endorsing political parties or political candidates. Rather, it should pay close attention to fulfilling its duties by praying for the country’s political leaders, [43] providing discipleship, and educating believers on the true meaning of being human, the meaning of life, and connecting them to the awe-inspiring sacramental life. Once a Christian experiences proper discipleship and lives and understands his faith, proper decisions will follow in every aspect of his life. An educational and spiritual renaissance such as the one brought on by St. Habib Girgis, St. Pope Kyrillos VI, and Pope Shenouda III is desperately needed. [44] On the other hand, the government is responsible for maintaining societal order and stewarding the economic system. As such, a government subscribing to the constrained vision may prove ideal because minimal interference with human nature is advisable in a heterogenous and multireligious society due to the complexity of its social landscape. A solution to one emerging issue may well cause two other unintended and more significant problems, which in turn engenders skepticism towards hasty social intervention. Indeed, Adam Smith warned of a man who is “wise in his own conceit” who “seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” [45] That being said, social reform is not prohibited under the constrained vision, but it is to be undertaken with the utmost caution as one would tend to a father’s wounds, as articulated by Burke. At the same time, the constrained vision offers valuable insight on practical issues due to its reliance on experience and wisdom derived from past generations. Because of that reliance and other self-imposed limitations, the constrained vision has traditionally outsourced social and spiritual concerns to the family and mediating institutions such as the Church. Irrespective of what political philosophy is employed, however, politicians across the aisle must recognize that their duty is to the Constitution and their constituents within the limitations set forth by the Constitution. Anything outside these boundaries belongs to and falls squarely within the mission of mediating institutions, such as local communities or the Church. In a word, government, and politicians of all affiliations, cannot provide people with the hope, love, joy, and flourishing they so frequently promise, no matter how much they might strive or desire to do so. — [1] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles , (Basic Books, N.Y. 2007), 1. [2] Sowell, 7. [3] The two visions encompass views on many aspects of life including justice, power, social processes, and equality; however, for the purposes of this article, I only choose the most abstract and consequential aspects: human nature and knowledge/reason. [4] Sowell, 12. [5] Sowell, 12-13. [6] For instance, Alexander Hamilton considered “all men” to be “entitled to a parity of privileges,” though he expected that economic inequality “would exist as long as liberty existed.” See Sowell, 133. [7] Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History , (Harper Collins Publishers N.Y. 2008), 149. [8] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self , (Crossway 2020), 109. [9] Trueman, 109-110. [10] Sowell, 16. [11] Sowell, 43-44. [12] Sowell, 18. [13] Sowell, 36. [14] Sowell, 38. [15] Sowell, 42. [16] Sowell, 38. Further to that point, Adam Smith urged the freeing of the American colonies prior to the revolutionary war in addition to suggesting a number of domestic reforms and being opposed to slavery. Similarly, authors of the Federalist Papers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay – certainly proponents of the constrained vision – came first to public notice as leaders in the revolt against the British rule. See Sowell, 39. [17] Sowell, 40. [18] Sowell, 40. [19] Sowell, 40-41. [20] Sowell, 43. [21] Sowell, 44. [22] Proverbs 22:28 NKJV (Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptural quotations are taken from the New King James translation). [23] This, of course, falls under the overarching fact that Scripture is inspired by God for the sake of human salvation. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV). [24] Proverbs 1:8-9. [25] Luke 1:1-4. [26] Proverbs 15:5. [27] St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation , paragraph 4 (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press N.Y. 2011). [28] Ephesians 4:1-6. [29] Matthew 5:48. [30]  Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions , Hoover Institution, November 4, 2008 (accessed October 25, 2024). In interviews discussing his book, Sowell makes clear that he is a proponent of the constrained vision. Yet, he does not adhere to a political party: “When people ask me why am I going to vote for McCain rather than Obama it’s because I prefer disaster to catastrophe.” [31] Federalism can also potentially play an interesting role in this discussion. What should be the role of local, state, and federal government in making regulations and enforcing the law? This can be explored in a later essay. [32] Matthew 22:21. [33] Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses , paragraph 239 (Paulist Press N.J. 1978). To be clear, Godwin did not view virtues such as generosity as political duties to be imposed by the state, but as moral duties to be harvested in the context of social duty, thereby making it unnecessary for the government to get involved. However, Godwin’s ideological progenies appear to think that government has a role to play in inspiring, and sometimes forcing, such virtues by law. Sowell, 213-214. [34] Jeffrey M. Jones, U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time , March 29, 2021. [35]  Ibid . [36] Jeffrey M. Jones, Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low , July 5, 2022. [37]  Ibid . [38] Alexis de Tocqueville, pt. 2, chap. 12 in Democracy in America , vol. 2, ed. J.P. Mayer (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 535. [39] Matthew 4:4. [40] This point may be discussed in a future essay. Interestingly, Tom Holland, author of Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade The World , states that prior to today’s increasingly secular post-World War II era, “people, even if they were not Christian, they would accept Christ as the kind of the moral exemplar and say ‘what would Jesus do?’ I think, by and large, people now say ‘what would Hitler do?’ and do the opposite.” There is no Christ-like figure of ultimate good in real world secular morality; only the incarnate devil that is Hitler. I say “real world secular morality” because fictitious redemptive figures such as Superman are plenty in modern secular mythology. See   Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray , Hoover Institution, November 4, 2008 (accessed October 25, 2024). [41] Galatians 5:22-23. [42] Habib Girgis, الوسائل العمليه للاصلاحات القبطيه امال و احلام يمكن تحقيقها في عشرة اعوام, Sunday School Press (1942) at 68. [43] In the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the Coptic Orthodox Church prays for “[t]he leader (king) of our land, Your servant” and asks God to “[k]eep him in peace, truth, and strength. Subject under him all the barbarians, the nations that desire war against all our fertile lands. Speak to his heart concerning the peace of Your one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Grant to him that he may think peaceably towards us and towards Your holy name.” See also the Paschal Litanies: “Pray and ask that God may grant us mercy and compassion before the sovereign rulers, and incline their hearts with goodness towards us at all times, and forgive us our sins.” [44] I restrict my analysis to the Coptic Orthodox Church because this is the Church to which I belong. Pluralism, the First Amendment, and similar issues are outside the scope of this essay but may be addressed in a later essay. [45] Sowell, 45. — Amir Botros is a practicing attorney in New Jersey and holds an undergraduate degree in jurisprudence and political science. He is also currently a student at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, and is an ordained Reader in the Coptic Orthodox Church. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

The blessed month of Ⲧⲱⲃⲉ is known by its focus on and many celebrations of the Divine Manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Throughout this month, the Coptic Church presents for her members a series of readings in her Sunday Lectionary, and also in the readings associated with the Feasts of the Lord that are celebrated this month, that depict the Lord’s Manifestation in a twofold manner: firstly, God is manifested to all of creation in and by virtue of His glorious incarnation and in the events in the life of our Lord that the Church celebrates during this month — His circumcision, baptism, and the first of His signs which He performed at the wedding in Cana of Galilee — and secondly, His manifestation is personally connected to our lives, deeds, and behaviors as Christians. The first of the feasts of the Divine Manifestation after the Nativity is the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is celebrated in the Coptic Church on the sixth of Ⲧⲱⲃⲉ, eight days after the Feast of the Nativity (inclusive). We learn of His circumcision from the Gospel according to St. Luke: “And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.” [1] In closely examining circumcision as it was practiced in the Old Testament, the significance of the circumcision of our Lord, and of this Feast, becomes clear. God Himself commanded Abraham to practice circumcision as both a symbol of His covenant with man and as a distinguishing sign of God’s people. [2] He delineated specific instructions to Abraham in connection with the practice: “And the child of eight days old shall be circumcised by you, every male throughout your generations…And the uncircumcised male, who shall not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be utterly destroyed from its family, for he has broken my covenant.” [3] In the circumcision of our Lord, we observe His complete obedience to the Law of the Old Testament, and how He, while being Himself the Lawgiver, did not hold Himself above the Law. Indeed, since circumcision was God’s commandment to His people, it was necessary that Christ, the Son of God, observe it. St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Third Homily on the Gospel of St. Luke, explains: “Again, when the Son was present among us, though by nature God and the Lord of all, He does not on that account despise our measure, but along with us is subject to the same law, although as God He was Himself the legislator.” [4] What a wonder it is to behold Christ’s willingness to observe the Law and His obedience to it! “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” [5] It was Adam’s disregard and disobedience of God’s Law that caused him to sin and his nature to become corrupt: “Through the advice of Eve our first mother, Adam ate from the fruit of the tree. So came to our race and all the creation the authority of death and corruption.” [6] It is therefore through the obedience of the Second Adam to the Law, and His fulfillment in Himself of all that was required for our salvation, that the sin of the first Adam is abolished and we are renewed. “Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.” [7] “Yes truly He confirmed His incarnation, and fulfilled our humility by His circumcision. Therefore, He taught us the ways of salvation, and He has saved us according to His great mercy.” [8] The practice of circumcision, which was legislated by God to His people in the Old Testament, served three purposes, according to St. Cyril: “…in the first place, it separated the posterity of Abraham by a sort of sign and seal, and distinguished them from all other nations. In the second, it prefigured in itself the grace and efficacy of Divine baptism; for as in old time he that was circumcised was reckoned among the people of God by that seal, so also he that is baptized, having formed in himself Christ the seal, is enrolled into God’s adopted family. And, thirdly, it is the symbol of the faithful when established in grace, who cut away and mortify the tumultuous risings of carnal pleasures and passions by the sharp surgery of faith, and by ascetic labors; not cutting the body, but purifying the heart, and being circumcised in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise, as the divine Paul testifies, needs not the sentence of any human tribunal, but depends upon the decree from above.” [9] Circumcision served as the Old Testament precursor — the “type,” “prefigure,” or “shadow” — to baptism in the New Testament. For as God gave Abraham circumcision as the seal of those who were once His people, so also did He grant to His Church baptism by water and the Spirit — along with the mystery of Chrismation — as the seal of those who are the new Israel [10] — His new people: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” [11] St. Paul also writes: “ In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ” [12] Regarding this, Būlus al-Būshī, the thirteenth century Coptic Orthodox bishop, writes: “The Lord has given us baptism in the place of circumcision; his blood and flesh in place of the lambs’ flesh…Circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the spirit…It is not the same, nor even the circumcision [itself]. Rather, it is the cleanliness and the purification of the heart in the Holy Spirit by means of baptism.” [13] While the practice of circumcision, as it was known in the Old Testament, has been put away by the inauguration of the reality it prefigured — Christian baptism — there remains still a personal spiritual significance of circumcision to Christians. St. Cyril explains: “For on the eighth day Christ arose from the dead, and gave us the spiritual circumcision. For He commanded the holy Apostles: ‘Having gone, make ye disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ [14] And we affirm that the spiritual circumcision takes place chiefly in the season of holy baptism, when also Christ makes us partakers of the Holy Spirit. And of this again, that Jesus [15] of old, who was captain after Moses, was a type. For he first of all led the children of Israel across the Jordan; and then having halted them, immediately circumcised them with knives of stone. So when we have crossed the Jordan, Christ circumcises us with the power of the Holy Spirit, not purifying the flesh, but rather cutting off the defilement that is in our souls.” [16] Circumcision for the believer, then, is firstly baptism itself, by which, through dying with Christ and rising with Him, the old nature is renewed, the inherited sin is wiped away, and the baptizee is transferred from darkness to light, grafted as a new branch — a new member — in the Tree of Life, Christ and His Body, the Church, sealed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit as signified by the anointing of the oil of the chrism; [17] secondly, it is the cutting off of all evil inclinations, sinful thoughts, and carnal desires from the heart and mind. It is the cutting off of the old life in order to adopt the new and superior life, [18] which is that of Christ. This is accomplished by the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit and through our obedience to the commandments of our Lord: “Unless he keeps the commandments of God, a man cannot make progress, not even in a single virtue.” [19] The Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord is a commemoration of a significant event in the Lord’s economy  of salvation. St. Cyril writes: “His death, therefore, was for our sakes, as were also His resurrection and His circumcision.” [20] Moreover, it is a sobering call and a convicting reminder to cut off the hindrances to our growth in virtue and in the knowledge of God, and to renew our journey with Him, so that with Origen of Alexandria, we may confidently proclaim: “When He died, we died with Him, and when He rose, we rose with Him. Likewise, we were also circumcised along with Him.” [21] To God is due all glory. — [1] Luke 2:21 [2] Genesis 17:12-13 ( LXX ) [3] Genesis 17:12-14 ( LXX ) [4] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.6 [5] Romans 5:19 [6] Ⲗⲱⲃϣ of the Monday θεοτοκια [7] Romans 15:8-9 [8] Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ for the Feast of the Circumcision and the Entry of the Lord into the Temple , 17-19 [9] St. Cyril of Alexandra, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.7 [10] See  Galatians 6:16; see also Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; 1 Peter 2:4-10 [11] Ephesians 1:13 [12] Colossians 2:11-12 [13] Būlus al-Būshī, Commentary on the Apocalypse of John ch.1-3  in Stephen J. Davis, Revelation 1-3 in Christian Arabic Commentary, 68-69 [14] Matthew 28:19 [15] Joshua [16] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.4 [17] Regarding the chrism, see, e.g. , Origen, Commentary on Romans , V, 8: “We are baptized with visible water and visible chrism according to the tradition of the church;” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures , XXI, 3: “But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ's gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and your other senses; and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.”  [18] See Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ for the Three Saintly Children [19] Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers , 20 (Abba Agathon, Saying 3) [20] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.5 [21] Origen the Great, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 14.1 —

In the Christian understanding, the concept of joy is thoroughly rooted in the message of the Gospel, and its significance is elevated in its identification as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Interestingly, the association of the Virgin Mary with joy became popularized during the early modern period (1400-1800 A.D.), when all major sects of Christianity — the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic Churches — came to place an especially great emphasis on venerating the blessed Mother of God, viewing her through the lens of joy. Of the 1,071 available Marian stories from this historical period, [1]  192 (constituting 17.9%) [2]  directly use the words joy  or rejoice , suggesting a deliberate association. In analyzing the stories in the Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary Project (PEMM) wherein the Virgin Mary is associated with joy, a pattern emerges: the blessed Virgin is alluded to as either the embodiment of joy or its bestower. Indeed, this medieval association of the Virgin Mary with joy remains especially relevant today, permeating historical, social, and cultural contexts, as Christians today, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, strive to establish a personal relationship with Mary, who, by virtue of being the Mother of God, is also the mother of the Church. In such an analysis, it becomes necessary to distinguish between happiness  and joy , especially as both terms are often used interchangeably in colloquial language. Both concepts, while related, have significantly distinct meanings: happiness is associated with happenings , while joy  transcends and permeates circumstance. In other words, happiness  comes from the outside-in while joy comes from the inside-out. An illustrative PEMM example, that of ID#60, describes a woman who is said to have “rejoiced joyfully” although “they beat her with rods until her blood poured out like water.” Undoubtedly, encountering physical abuse is not something that would bring a person happiness, which is why the author opts instead to use the term joy  — a completely different concept. This notion is further exemplified in the PEMM Marian story database as a whole: the word happy  is only mentioned 15 times in all translated stories, few of which are related to the Virgin Mary personally. The use of the word joy  over happiness thus signifies that the authors of these stories were familiar with the conceptual differences between the two terms, especially in light of the framework of Christian thought. The Historical Context of Marian Stories A common expression in many of the relevant Marian stories is “ rejoiced with great joy” — an emphasis on joy even when joy is already being expressed. Such insistence points to joy as a spiritual commodity worth striving for. When the PEMM Marian stories are put into their historical, social, and cultural contexts, we see why the authors and audience alike desired joy. While the PEMM database contains stories with attestations that span from 1375 A.D. to the present day, most of the accounts therein first appeared between 1400 and 1600 A.D. This, however, does not mean that these stories did not exist before these dates, but rather that they were formally documented in writing at these points in time. Given that most of these manuscripts are Ethiopian, we will focus on the Ethiopian context in which they were written. In the fifteenth century, Ethiopia was ruled by the Zagwe dynasty. This period was known for its cultural and religious vibrancy in the form of literature, paintings, and church architecture. This productivity birthed the idea of artistic expression in Ethiopian culture, one of the fruits of which being Marian manuscripts. It is no mystery why such cultural expression brought great joy: oral stories now bore the fruit of literacy and illustration. In the sixteenth century, however, the Solomonic dynasty replaced the Zagwe dynasty, resulting in a period of political and social conflict. During this time, Ethiopia began to cultivate ties with European nations. This era of conflict in Ethiopian history developed in its citizens a yearning for joy as defined in Christian thought. Marian stories continued to be written and developed, with some also finding their origins in Europe given Ethiopia’s developing relationship with European powers. Thus, joy was relayed through Marian stories as a means of bringing comfort to their audience. Mary as the Embodiment of Joy In many Marian stories, the Virgin Mary is alluded to and described as the embodiment of joy — joy being a defining characteristic of her essence. Thus, Mary, as a vessel of joy, offers important insights into what  joy is. Through the Virgin Mary, the embodiment of joy, the characteristics of joy are made evident. In the case of ID#29, joy radiates. In this story, the Virgin Mary grants a woman a son after she promised to offer a feast in Mary’s name and baptize him at one of the landmarks the Holy Family visited while in Egypt. While the son was being baptized, he was dropped into the spring. Upon being rescued, the boy recalls that a beautiful woman caught him, saving him. In response, the family and those gathered at the spring cried out to the Virgin Mary saying, “you are [the] fullness of joy and gladness, blessed are you among women.” Here, the word fullness  may be substituted for the word embodiment . As a result of her saving the young boy, Mary becomes  joy for those who experienced this miracle. This not only emphasizes the association between Mary and joy, but also the understanding of Mary as the mother of all who put on Christ: the believers. The characters in the account, by experiencing this joyful miracle, form an intimate relationship with Mary who rescues their loved ones. Moreover, this personal relationship with Mary extends to a further intimacy with joy.    Along with depicting the radiance of joy, in the Virgin Mary and the PEMM accounts of the believers’ encounters with her, joy is also found to be beautiful . In the story of ID#35, the author reports an “abounding joy in the appearance of [the Virgin Mary’s] face.” Subsequently, we find a relationship between appearance and sentiment: the beauty of the Virgin Mary is correlated with her joy. This notion is further expressed in ID#68, which tells that a man named George had an “exceedingly great joy that filled his heart through the beauty and sweet odor of Our Lady Mary.” Again, joy is correlated with beauty, and, in this case, an aroma, or “sweet odor,” as well. The engagement of the senses is emphasized in both of these examples. Both accounts portray a relationship with joy and the sense of sight, and the second story also draws on the sense of smell. As a result, we learn that joy is not only experienced emotionally, but physically as well. This correlation is further demonstrated in ID#181, wherein a monk encounters “the sweetness of [the Virgin Mary’s] joy.” Thus, joy is also sweet , implying its relationship to taste. Ultimately, the Virgin Mary is not simply an embodiment of joy in the emotional sense, but also in the physical sense. Hitherto, joy has been found to be radiating, beautiful, and sweet. In ID#35-C, the author uses a simile to compare the experience of joy, expressed in relation to the Virgin Mary, to being in heaven. Thus, we learn that joy is heavenly . He writes, “to them it is like being in Heaven because of the joy that they find at that time, through the apparition of the Theotokos.” The characteristic of joy as heavenly further associates it with the healing  and righteous  qualities of heaven. In the book of Revelation, the heavenly city is described as having a tree with leaves that “were for the healing of the nations.” [3]  In the prior chapter, John the Beloved also discusses healing, writing: “He [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” [4]  Moreover, Peter the Apostle writes: “But according to His promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” [5]  The heavenliness of joy emphasizes its ability to permeate circumstance, and having the Virgin Mary as its embodiment in this context is most fitting. Just as heaven is referred to as the place where God resides, the Logos, a Hypostasis of the Triune God, took flesh from and resided in the womb of the Virgin Mary. [6]  Thus, the relationship between joy and Mary is a quintessential conceptualization of heaven. [7] Ultimately, through the Virgin Mary as the embodiment of joy, we understand joy as having (but not being limited to) the characteristics of radiation, beauty, sweetness, and heavenliness. Notably, these characteristics are not dependent on external factors, but are rather in and of themselves both splendid and yearned for. Mary as the Bestower of Joy Thus far, the Virgin Mary has been established as the embodiment of joy, and, as this embodiment, she reveals and exemplifies the characteristics of joy. Delving deeper into the Marian stories that mention joy, one also observes the endowment of joy through the person of the Virgin Mary. In this way, the Mother of God becomes the bestower of joy.   The Virgin Mary — the mother of the Church by virtue of being the Mother of Him who is the head of the Church — grants joy to the believers as members of the Church. She acts uniquely and personally with each of the faithful, as her children. For some, she bestows joy by seeking justice on their behalf, while for others, she grants joy simply through her presence. By forming an intimate relationship with her venerators, the Virgin Mary becomes recognized as someone who is closer than expected. By emphasizing the intimacy of Mary, the Marian stories we have been discussing portray a message that proclaims joy as being within reach. The Virgin Mary, possessing joy as an inherent characteristic, is able to bestow joy because it is an essential part of her being. In ID#44, the Virgin Mary seeks vengeance for a group of Christians at a monastery in Egypt who were robbed by a group of Arabs after a prayer service. After realizing what had happened, a priest threatens Mary, stating that he will no longer pray in her sanctuary if she does not return the possessions of the church-goers. In response, Mary appeared to the Arabs, blinded and paralyzed them, and commanded them to return the possessions. Once the people heard of her intercession, they described the Virgin Mary as the one who “pour[s] out joy.” In this expression, one perceives not only how the blessed Virgin embodies joy, but also her generous outpouring of joy. To further illustrate this point, one can easily recognize that a fountain is able to pour out  water only because it is full of  water. A fountain could not be a fountain without water, and as such, water is necessary to the very being of a fountain. The relationship of joy to the person of the Virgin Mary is similar: she is able to pour out  joy only because joy is of her essence. Furthermore, the phrase “ pours out”  also signifies the graciousness and multitude of joy that Mary bestows: for those monks for whom the Virgin advocated, her actions constituted more than a mere bestowal, but an outpouring of joy. Since joy forms part of Mary’s intrinsic character, she is able to confer it freely. Further, Mary’s ability to freely bestow joy fulfills the promise of joy given to her: “You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy.” [8]  In ID#71, the Virgin Mary intercedes on behalf of a queen who requested that Mary allow her to have a son, promising that he will be raised righteously. The Virgin Mary accepts her supplications, intercedes on her behalf, and God grants her a son. At this child’s baptism, all those present marveled as a great light shined over the child after he was blessed by the patriarch. Once the queen returned home with her son, they held a feast and venerated the Virgin Mary saying, “Because of you, we have joy in exchange for our grief and delight in exchange of our sadness.” Interestingly, this concept of joy in exchange for sadness, not unique to this story, echoes the Lord’s promise of joy out of sorrow. It is not the ability to turn sorrow into joy that is exemplary in this Marian story, but rather, the instrument through which this occurs — Mary herself. The author of ID#71 was likely familiar with this saying of Jesus and felt that the fulfillment of this promise was the Virgin Mary, hence the language used — “because of you [Mary].” Here, the character of Mary is twofold: she is the bestower of joy as well as the fulfillment of the promise of joy.   Following this theme of Mary as the fulfillment of joy, in ID#27, the author describes the Virgin Mary as the one “who brings joy and consolation.” The phrase who brings is interesting in this context, allowing for a multifaceted interpretation: the Virgin can be understood here as the messenger of the joy of God, as well as the embodiment of joy who thereby possesses the power to bestow joy at her discretion. If we follow the teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, then it would be more appropriate to address the Virgin Mary as the messenger of joy. However, the language used in this story, as well as in many others, does not suggest this notion to be the understanding of the authors. Rather, the authors resonate with the idea that the Virgin Mary is the embodiment of joy and has authority in and of herself. It is important to note here the difficulty in translation, which may lend itself to misinterpretation. Irrespectively, these stories cannot necessarily be regarded as historically or theologically accurate; primarily, their authorship was commissioned to become a source of comfort, inspiration, and encouragement for the faithful, especially as they experienced the sociopolitical injustices that plagued the Ethiopians in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In light of this perspective, one understands the immersion in and repurposing of many Biblical stories relating the concept of joy to the Virgin Mary, who is dearly beloved to the faithful. In the PEMM Marian stories, the Virgin Mary is therefore established as the embodiment of Biblical joy, even having authority to bestow joy to the living faithful. However, the method by which Mary offers and bestows joy is not consistent or generalizable. Rather, her relationship with each individual Christian is unique, offering further insights into the intimacy of Mary and her joy. For instance, in ID#191, a youth, after kissing the hand of the Virgin Mary, “wept from joy.” In this story, joy is bestowed through an intimate physical connection. In ID#256, when Mary visited her relative Elizabeth during their pregnancies, Elizabeth tells her: “When I heard your voice in greeting, the child leapt joyfully and happily in my womb.” [9] Here, joy is described as being bestowed through the hearing of Mary’s voice. In ID#35, upon seeing the Virgin Mary, “joy came upon” those who asked for her supplications that they may see a family member who had passed away. Here, joy comes upon those who simply see Mary. In these examples, we see the Virgin Mary granting joy through physical intimacy, speech, and sight, presenting to readers the understanding that they likewise, by establishing a relationship with the Virgin Mary and the departed saints, can encounter joy through this system of ecclesial relation. In this way, joy ceases to be a far-fetched concept and becomes a way of life that can be experienced through physical intimacy, delicacy of speech, and delight in sight. Ultimately, the Virgin Mary, as the bestower of joy, acts uniquely and personally with each of her believers at the level where they are able to experience her and share in her joy. Significance & Conclusion Whether as the embodiment or bestower of joy, the Virgin Mary’s association with joy serves as a source of comfort, hope, and inspiration for believers. The unique relationship of joy to the person of the Virgin Mary is easily perceptible. The Marian stories of the PEMM project do well to illustrate and emphasize Mary’s joy and reflect her faith and complete trust in God and His promises. It is important to note that these Marian stories were, and continue to be, part of the Ethiopian Orthodox culture and tradition; they are not merely words fabricated and commissioned for the sake documentation, but were rather authentic, personal, and living depictions of the Virgin Mary. As such, the personal qualities of these stories shine through the written accounts: discussing joy in such a context not only portrays the journey of Christian life as the cultivation of spiritual fruit, but also presents the Virgin Mary as the mother of the faithful, accompanying, encouraging, and comforting them — indeed, granting them a joyful countenance and exuberant endurance — as they venture deeper into their lives in Christ her Son and through any of life’s difficult circumstances.   — [1] Approximately one-third of these Marian stories are translated in the Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary Project (PEMM). [2] Due to the gap in translations available, the actual percentage is likely much higher. [3]  Revelation 22:2 [4]  Revelation 21:4 [5]  1 Peter 3:13 [6] “The One of the Trinity, one in essence with the Father, when He saw our lowly state and our bitter bondage, He bowed the heaven of heavens and came to the womb of the Virgin. He became Man like us, except for sin only” (The Thursday Θεοτοκια: 8.1-2). [7] In the hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the titles that are given to the Virgin Mary is “the new heaven.” For instance: “…This is Mary, the new heaven on earth, from whom shines on us the Sun of Righteousness” (The Thursday Θεοτοκια 9.3). [8] John 16:20 [9]  See also  Luke 1:41-44 — Bibliography Wallis Budge. “ID 27: Scete miracles: Maryam from Dǝfrā, a child who wanted to receive Communion but was shut up in the house when her family went to church, goes to heaven..” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/27 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Ekaterina Pukhovaia. “ID 29: Mǝnetä Diyaqon cycle: The wife of Joseph from Mǝneta Diyāqon, who had no male children..” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/29 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Wendy Laura Belcher and Ekaterina Pukhovaia. “ID 35: Däbrä Metmaq miracles: The annual apparition of Saint Mary at Däbrä Metmaq with Christ's promises.” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/35 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Rowan Williams. “ID 35-c: Däbrä Metmaq miracles: The annual apparition of Saint Mary at Däbrä Metmaq when the bishop asks her to give her blessing…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/35-c . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Blaine Kebede. “ID 44: The priest, Rizqallah, recovers things stolen from pilgrims…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/44 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Blaine Kebede. “ID 60: The Arab woman who entrusted her jewels to a Christian for safekeeping…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/60 . Last modified: 5.9.2023. Wallis Budge. “ID 68: Saint Mary appears to the martyr, Giyorgis Haddis, in prison…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/68 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Bret Windhauser. “ID 71: Romeya cycle? When Sefengeya, wife of a different King of Romeya, King Masfeyanos, prays to have a child before the icon of Saint Mary, the icon inclines its head; Sefengeya then conceives Yeshaq (Abba Garima).” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/71 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Wallis Budge. “ID 181: The monk custodian of the church who prayed to see Saint Mary…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/181 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Wallis Budge. “ID 191: The only son of a king who dedicated himself to Saint Mary…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/191 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Augustine Dickinson. “ID 256: Saint Basil cycle: Saint Mary, together with Saints Irene and Sophia, appears to Saint Basil and tells him where her icon is buried…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/256 . Last modified: 5.8.2023.   — Mark Dawod serves as a Reader at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Jersey City, New Jersey. He is a graduate of Princeton University and a current student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, pursuing a career in medicine. This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for "Healing & Justice: The Virgin Mary in African Literature & Art," offered by Dr. Wendy Belcher in Spring 2023 at Princeton University. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

A Homily of His Eminence Metropolitan Kyrillos of Milan of blessed memory delivered during the Revival services held during the Fast of the Virgin Mary. Year unknown.  [In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy] Spirit: One God. Amen.  From the Epistle of our teacher Saint Paul to the Corinthians, may his blessings be upon us all. Amen.  “Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.” [1]   Glory be to the Holy Trinity: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  From our mother, the Virgin Mary, I ask that she might pray for us all, [] that we might complete the time of our estrangement on earth with one characteristic, or one virtue, from the virtues in her.  In the life of the Virgin Mary, [there is] much speech and also much silence. Speech in the life of the Virgin Mary [is] a sermon and a benefit for all. And silence in the life of the Virgin Mary [is] an opportunity for prayer and contemplation.  We say to the Virgin Mary in the praises: “the select incense of your virginity […] is greater than the incense of the seraphim and the cherubim, O Mary the Virgin.” [2] The incense of the Virgin Mary — the incense of the purity in her and her chastity — is better than the seraphim and the cherubim who sit around the fiery cherubic throne praising the Lord.  And we also say to her in the praises: “Hail to the second heaven whom the Father has made a place of rest for His only Son.” [3] A second heaven. And David the Prophet says: “glorious things have been spoken of you, O city of God.” [4] Meaning they likened the Virgin Mary to the second heaven, or they likened her to the city of God. She has reached this exalted spiritual level because of the purity that dwells in her and because of her complete virginity.  For this reason, we deal with the Virgin Mary  out of love and the desire to possess purity and holiness [], and we open our hearts to God that He might appear embodied in our inward parts and our actions and our behavior, just as she opened her heart to God so Christ appeared incarnate in her inward parts.  What is the incense that is found in the Virgin Mary, and why is the incense that is found in the Virgin greater than the incense of the cherubim and seraphim?  The natural incense that we see in the church is a mixture of myrrh and oud and cinnamon. [5] A mixture that produces for us the beautiful fragrance. In the world of the saints, there is also a mixture that produces a precious fragrance — a mixture of love with a mixture of humility, with some tenderness, with some patience, with some endurance, with some difficulties and trials produces the precious fragrance.  And the fragrance that was in the Virgin Mary was quite powerful, to the point that Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, by merely inhaling this fragrance, found rest, and John also found rest in the womb of Elizabeth. The Book tells us that Elizabeth told the Virgin Mary: “as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” [6] Meaning inside, John rejoices by merely inhaling the fragrance, and she felt the peace in her ears from the fragrance of the Virgin — the precious fragrance that is obtained from the highest through purity.  And as they say to Abba Antony in the praises: “the incense of his virtues gladdened our souls.” [7] If one would like to gladden another on earth, he does not gladden him with material things or by outward dealings, but rather gladdens him with the virtue that is in him. “The incense of his virtues gladdened our souls, like the fragrance of blossoming amber emanating from Paradise.” [8] And the fragrance of Abba Antony was just like the fragrance of the Virgin — they [both] had from the pure fragrance of Christ. His fragrance emanated and spread and [] was able to penetrate the emptiness and enter into the whole world and captivate the world, and all the people were able to smell the fragrance of Christ through Abba Antony and through the account of his life. And despite the sweet fragrance that was in Abba Antony an apparent fragrance, there are those who have the sweet fragrance which [only] our Lord knows well.  We in the world can exude various fragrances and capture the people’s attention through our fragrances. And a person may have a fragrance which from without appears to be ecclesial, but “God cannot be mocked” [9] and “God does not tempt anyone.” [10] May God inhale this fragrance and identify this fragrance.  In the days of Abba Antony, Abba Antony thought that there was no one with his fragrance — that no one ever had a similar fragrance. So the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: “O Antony, you have not attained what a tailor in Alexandria has attained.” A tailor found in Alexandria who pursued his craft and lived in the world, but who had a distinct fragrance — every morning he would say “I am the only sinner in the world,” and would only think of his own sins and evils, yet in the sight of God he was preferable to Abba Antony. [11] We have a fragrance which we have all received in the font of baptism. No one has entered the font of baptism without receiving the fragrance about which our teacher Paul the Apostle says that “we are the sweet fragrance of Christ,” [12] but the putrid aroma in us is caused by our mingling with the world and the world’s entry and invasion into our souls. [It] has come to rule over the heart and the feelings, emotions, and senses. [It] has come to rule over the entire being. And so the person is found to limp between two teams. Therefore, the sweet fragrance has been lost.  Where is the fragrance the child received in the font of baptism? See the image of victory — when the child emerges from the font of baptism and the angels encircle the church — the earthly angels encircling the church — with joy and victory, and [the child] wears the red ribbon as evidence of victory and is crowned with heavenly crowns on earth. All of this is gone! Gone! Because we have mingled with the world.  Our teacher Saint Paul says: “I am the temple of the holy God.” “The temple of the holy God” means that God has come to dwell in us from within. God, who is seated upon the fiery cherubic throne, emptied Himself for the sake of dwelling in every soul. He also tells us: “you are the temple of the holy God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you.” [13] How can the Spirit of God dwell in us, and how can we be the temple of the holy God, and then become divested of the sweet fragrance of Christ?  Where is the fragrance of Christ in us? Where is the fragrance — the precious fragrance, where has it gone?  In the Old Testament, the lamp-stand of the Holies was always lit — night and day — testifying that the word of God is light. And at the altar of the sacrifice — the golden altar — the incense was placed night and day to declare the persistence of petitions. And I, as a human — the temple of the holy God — must find within me these two requirements: the lamp-stand of the Holies — the word of God — as a light within me, and the second thing is that I, with continuous prayers offered at all times, obtain the divine goodwill and preserve [my]  purity. As one of the holy fathers says: “blessed is the one who sleeps with Your Holy Name in his mouth. The devils will flee from approaching him, and will not find in him an entry point or a dwelling place.” “Blessed is the one who sleeps” — despite his sleep, the lamp-stand is functioning, operational [], and lit. A hidden prayer. Asleep but with a watchful heart. Speaking to God while he sleeps.  And even if a person works and sweats and comes to know the sweat of the toil of the flesh, with God [this is] preferred to the fragrance of incense and perfumes if it is done for God’s sake. As one of our fathers the saints told us: “the fragrance of the toil of the flesh is preferred to incense and perfumes.” If I become tired for God’s sake, if I exert effort for God’s sake in order to preserve the purity and cleanness of this divine temple, with God this is an exalted status — a pure status.  “You are the temple of the holy God.” The revival we are experiencing now must be within us. Always. Feeling that I am a temple of the holy God. “Temple of the holy God” means my actions, my words, my deeds, and my inner life. The curriculum of my life. My behavior during the day and in the middle of the night — in secret and apparent. My intentional and unintentional behavior — complete [], mature, witnessing that I am a temple for Him. A dwelling place for God.  If a person lives in this manner always, his appearance can sermonize others without words. See the chaplet, when someone brings it and places it in the light. Once the chaplet is removed from the light, it still has the features of light. While you are the temple of the holy God, and God dwells in you, the evil people inhale the sweet fragrance of Christ through you. They see dominion in you, and power. They see that you are elevated above every person bound with the bonds of sin.  You are the temple of the holy God, meaning the angels surround you — the cherubim and seraphim, the dominions and powers. God in His fullness is within you. The temple of the holy God, we transform into the temple of evil. It is impossible for Satan to possess the temple of God except with our permission []. We are the ones who allow Satan to enter and to [make himself comfortable] and to administer his kingdom from within the soul. For this reason, one of the fathers who is experienced in the spiritual life tells us: “Satan is a rope-slitter. You provide to him the bonds and he [weaves them].” A rope-slitter. He is sitting [comfortably]. You provide to him the thread and he works and [weaves]. He makes you a covering, [or] a carpet, he covers you, he puts you to sleep, he swindles you of your spirituality, but only with your permission.  When Christ descended to earth, He could not tolerate the Temple that was built with stones because it was transformed into “a den of thieves.” His dwelling was transformed into a den of thieves. What is our position if Christ enters now into each of our souls? If He enters His holy temple, which is you? What will He do? If you permit Him to enter, He will overturn the tables and drive away the merchants, and will change the order, and will utter the painful saying: “My house is called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.” [14] “A den of thieves” because I steal God’s right and God’s glory and God’s honor [from Him]. Many of us steal God’s right and His glory. Hear the Book of Revelation saying to us: “and the twenty-four elders who sit on the throne fall down . . . and cast their crowns before the One who is seated on the throne” — their crowns are not theirs, but God had granted them to them — “and cast their crowns before the One who is seated . . . saying: ‘You are worthy . . . To receive glory and honor and power.’” [15] The glory in us is Yours. The honor in us is Yours. The power we have is rightfully Yours alone.  “A den of thieves.” The temple of the holy God becomes transformed into a den of thieves.  As a temple of the holy God, remember the graces and blessings God will grant to you if you preserve this temple. And remember also the pains and tribulations and sufferings you will receive if you transform this body, and transform yourself, from the temple of the holy God into a throne for Satan. So God sent a message to the angel of the Church of Pergamos and said to him: “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith...” [16] . A beautiful message.  There is a demon near to you who is fighting to transform the temple of the holy God, which is you, into a throne for himself. He is always striving. You sleep but he does not. You might despair in your prayers to God, but he does not despair in what he desires of you. He does not know despair. The plan of Satan is clear before him and dwells in him. He seeks to destroy in any way possible. You are the temple of the holy God, but you can also become the throne of Satan.  If you desire to change your life — if you feel that you have been transformed from the temple of the holy God into the throne of Satan — if you wish to return to your original condition, you must begin with yourself. The beginning is not from without. It cannot come from a book or as someone who receives an injection in a vein or a solution. The beginning is from you, through God alone.  If an entry point brings you sin, you must insist to shut it as you know how. If a magazine causes you to stumble, rip it up. If a door opens up sin to you, refuse the sin, refuse the door, and seal this door. If a friend in whom you were misled — if a friend in whose friendship and acquaintance you are rendered poor — causes you spiritual harm, and turns the temple of the holy God in you into the throne of Satan, sacrifice and forego this friendship and know that this is not friendship. Begin with yourself.  The Satanic throne works in the soul in the negative direction, to the point that it has the ability to tranquillize the soul and put the person to sleep, and to evict from him all that is alive. To suck his life. And when the person begins to regain his consciousness, he realizes that he has lost many of his faculties — he has lost his sight, [] his hearing, [] the sweetness of the life with God, [] his purity, he has become impure, he has gone astray, he only knows the judgment of others, is obsessed with the faults of others, knows an abundance of worldly things, and Satan governs this soul. And so [] the legs are quick to run to evil, and the hands to the shedding of blood, [17] and the whole soul is absent-minded.  Let us begin through the gentle mother. The gentle mother is repentance. [] Know that there is something called repentance. Repentance is the mother of life and power to the one who is born of her. [] When we go back to see when repentance was born, we find that the beginning of repentance on earth was the moment of Adam’s fall. It was born on the day of the fall. It has breasts, and all who nurse from them will not die. It is impossible for one who has nursed from repentance to die, if he has nursed truly.  The Spiritual Elder [John Saba] tells us about [repentance] that it has made the adulterers virgins. It has transformed people from the state of adultery to the state of virginity. Freely, without charge, gratuitously. [] It has transferred the soul to a better life. A purer life for man in the heavenly things.  Let us begin through repentance. And hear the holy Bible describe the once deviant soul that was the throne of Satan and has returned to God. It says about her: “Who is this coming up from the wilderness, Leaning upon her beloved…” [18] . See the image of the person emerging from sincere confession! Luminous, leaning on Christ! His tears were wiped away by Christ [in confession]. The state of despair has been transformed into a state of hope. Death to life. Darkness to light.  “Who is this coming up from the wilderness?” It is the soul that was filled with rust. For this reason, they say about repentance that it is “a boiling pot that clarifies all who touch it” — all who are afflicted with rust. Like a piece of copper that is full of rust, when they put it in the pot and the man begins to massage it until he returns to it the original state of purity and restores it to its [original] condition.  I have rusted in the world. I rejected Christ many times on several occasions, and many times Christ came and knocked on the door of my heart, saying to me: “open up for Me. Open up for Me, My beloved. Open! I have been awake all night in order to come inside with you! To give you the precious fragrance!” And many times man refuses.   “A boiling pot that clarifies all who are afflicted with rust.”  Through repentance and through continuous prayer, I will return to my original state. The precious fragrance will be restored to me once more. They will see my fragrance and glorify the heavenly Father. David the prophet tells us: “May my prayer be set before You as incense…” [19] . So prayer is a measure of incense. The one who has been trained to pray, whose tongue reflects the state of his heart, his fragrance is truly a heavenly fragrance. “May my prayer be set before You as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice.” [20]   Through prayer [we express] a persistent desire for our Lord to enter. A desire for our Lord to restore us to our original constitution. To restore my integrity. To replace my unlatched door. To grant me life.  What is behind repentance and continuous prayer is your knowledge of the value of this mystery — the mystery of the Eucharist. Your knowledge of the mystery of the Eucharist. I tell you truly, if any one of us recognized the value of this mystery, it is impossible for him to forego this place. The greatest comparison is if one of you has a particular problem, and found an opportunity to speak to one who is a president or governor or mayor — a heavyweight who can solve the issue. He would spend the entire night awake thinking, pondering, and mulling over what words he will say, what he will wear, how to win from the meeting the heart of the person [with whom he will speak].  We here before the fiery cherubic throne address God who is above every presidency and every authority and every power and every government and every name, not only in this age, but also in the age to come, as the Cyrillian Liturgy says. If you knew the value of this mystery, you would not arrive after the gospel, or at the very end in order to receive the blessing of communion and leave. You would not forego this place.  You are ready to speak to God in a matter that concerns you. A fateful issue. But no material issue is fateful. If the material could profit a man, then God would tell you: “give Me an account of your material things.” But the material profits nothing. Material things might support a king or a president, or support the rich and bring them in through the narrow door, but the material must be placed under the narrow door and they must enter through it.  While you are inside, beside the fiery cherubic throne, recognize your value. The present living sacrifice that is inside, it is for your sake. The one who is sacrificed tells you: “come and draw near to Me that you may be justified of your sins.” While you are entering absent-minded, not knowing whether the liturgy is to your liking or not, whether the priest took too long or finished too early, or whether you have work or not. These are not the emotions with which you enter near God in order to meet Him.  Do you want your fragrance to be changed? Be watchful all night [and] while you are walking in the street to enter inside, and tell our Lord: “I heard in the Song of Songs a saying about You that says: ‘While the Lord is at His table, my spikenard sends forth its fragrance’ [21] .”  My fragrance is despicable. I don’t want words. Within me is the language of the world. As for Your fragrance, O Lord, You are entirely pure, entirely holy, and holy entirely. When my despicable fragrance enters into Your fragrance, whose fragrance will appear? The fragrance that is full of purity will appear! [As for] the fragrance of defilement, the fragrance of lust, the fragrance of materialism in me, it will dissipate, disappear, and fade away. God will overcome it by His fragrance.  So as I enter, I am willing that God work. Not entering while thinking of other things outside. Think about your own case. Think about how God inhales the fragrance of a person, and through his fragrance He accepts him in Paradise. “You have the sweet fragrance of Christ.” Where has the fragrance of Christ gone [in you]? If God did not deal with us according to His wide and [loving] heart, then the person could be lost. But the love of God and His wide heart gave us Himself on the altar. Arrange yourself.  [ End of recording ] — [1] 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 [2] The Morning Doxology [3] Ibid . [4] Psalm 87:3 [5] See  Proverbs 7:17 [6] Luke 1:44 [7] Coptic Doxology of Abba Antony [8] Ibid . [9] Galatians 6:7a [10] James 1:13b [11] See  E.A. Wallis Budge (translator), The Paradise of the Holy Fathers , Volume II, Book 2.1.2 [12] 2 Corinthians 2:15 [13] 1 Corinthians 3:16 [14] Matthew 21:13 [15] See  Revelation 4:10-11 [16] Revelation 2:13 [17] See Proverbs 1:16 [18] Song of Solomon 8:5a [19] Psalm 141:2a [20] Psalm 141:2 [21] Song of Solomon 1:12 — Please find the full sermon at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHr_hGefTSQ Cover Image: A drawing of the Virgin Mary, by His Eminence Metropolitan Kyrillos of Milan of blessed memory.

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.” Mark 4:1 John Cassian, an ascetic monk and writer of the fourth and fifth centuries, spent time in the Egyptian desert transmitting the stories and experiences of Egyptian monasticism to the West. [1]  His writings, composed in Latin, were quickly translated into Greek to reach an even wider audience. Specifically, some of the stories from his writings were included in the well-known  Apophthegmata , known as the Sayings of the Desert Fathers . [2]  This personality of the early Church relayed eyewitness accounts of the monastic life in Scetis , of which very little was contemporaneously documented. [3]  John Cassian’s writings on the diabolical warfare experienced in early Egyptian monasticism introduced principles and concepts that relate to various struggles impacting the psychological health of many in today’s world. The Holy Scriptures are filled with accounts of demonic attacks on many individuals throughout the Old and New Testament, including the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. [4]  Specifically, the book of Job narrates a vivid diabolic attack that led to Job losing his family and possessions. [5]  Paul the Apostle also documented the demonic oppression that he experienced, stating that a “messenger of Satan” harassed him. [6] Diabolical warfare did not cease with the accounts of the Holy Scriptures, but rather was all the more witnessed, experienced, and documented in the lives of many Egyptian Desert Fathers and Mothers; not least in the writings of John Cassian. In discussing monastic diabolical warfare, one must first begin with the founder of traditional Egyptian Monasticism, Antony the Great. In the Life of Antony, written by Athanasius the Apostolic, [7]   demonic attacks and warfare were documented in great detail. Many severe attacks were experienced by Antony, [8]  beginning firstly with his thoughts; when this was to no avail, the demons then proceeded to attack the monk physically as well. [9]  Furthermore, in the Paradise of the Holy Fathers , [10] one finds other accounts of demonic attacks against many of the monks, specifically the solitary Evagrius. [11]  A contemporary of John Cassian, Evagrius [12]  was a monastic who also wrote extensively on the prayer life and wrote volumes outlining the various snares of the devil. [13]  It is this Evagrius whose demonology was an influence on the life and writings of John Cassian. Cassian’s writings were utilized by the Rule of Saint Benedict [14] in the West. [15] Evagrius laid the foundation of monastic writings which Cassian is said to have expounded, synthesized, and relayed to the West. Cassian mingled the teachings of the East with the spirit of the West, providing a practical approach and understanding to those who may have been naïve to or unfamiliar with the idea of diabolical warfare. [16]  Thus it is said that Evagrius deserves credit, albeit indirectly, for the spread of monasticism and monastic teaching in the West through the vessel that is John Cassian. [17]  Evagrius spoke in depth regarding the mysticism of diabolical warfare, including about demons and their interaction with humans, whereas Cassian spoke in more detail with regard to vices and the warfare between the flesh and spirit of the monk. [18]  This bridge — between the demonic and the inner struggle — was relayed in Cassian’s writings. Evagrius was therefore said to be of significance to monasticism in the West. [19]  Cassian’s further expansion on Evagrius’ demonology served as the foundation of the application of principles relevant to or arising from diabolical warfare to the inner struggles of the thoughts and emotions. This formed the basis for many of the psychological ideologies that were to be formalized thereafter. Cassian was born in the middle of the fourth century, and it is unclear where his birthplace was, though some believe it to have been Gaul (present day France). [20]  He spent time in Palestine and Egypt, the latter being where he famously wrote his monastic writings that were to be transmitted to the people of Gaul. [21]  One of his writings was written to Castor, a local bishop of the region, describing the monastic system of Egypt so that it might be imitated in the West. [22]  After his time as a monastic, Cassian became a disciple of John Chrysostom, who vouched for him to be sent to Rome after his deposition. [23]  Cassian and his friend Germanus, who journeyed with him on his monastic voyage, spent close to fifteen years in the Egyptian Desert, specifically in Scetis . [24]  It is during this time that Cassian wrote his two major literary eyewitness works of the Egyptian monastic life and struggle. John Cassian’s two main literary works are The Conferences of the Desert Fathers  and The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults . [25]  In both the Conferences  and the Institutes , eight spirits or principal faults, which represent the demonic attacks that plagued the Egyptian monks, are mentioned. The Conferences consist of counsels and dialogues of specific monks, whereas the Institutes present the specifics of monastic attire, life, and prayer. Not only did the Conferences  document the wisdom of the Egyptian ascetics, but it also infused references from the Scriptures into its teaching, including the patience of Job amidst the diabolical warfare that assailed him. [26]  This is significant because Job’s diabolical encounter emerges as an example to monastics in their duel with evil and of how to properly engage in it. [27]  In his dialogue with an elder named Serapion, Cassian documents the Eight Principal Faults  as “gluttony, fornication, avarice, [28]  anger, dejection, acedia, [29]  vain glory, and pride.” [30]  Although the Conferences  discusses these spirits amidst the counsels of the Egyptian monks, it is the Institutes  that discusses each of these demons in detail. [31] Of the eight principal spirits or faults, dejection and acedia most effectively link the monastic world with today’s psychological suffering. The spirit or demon of dejection is described as one that attacks at random, and prevents the monk from having gladness of heart. [32]  It makes the monk impatient and rough with the brethren and causes him to feel angry, crushing and overwhelming him with despair. [33]  Cassian also locates the origin of dejection as being from “previous anger” or a previous “lack of gain that has not been realized.” [34]  The monk isolates himself and no longer desires to engage in discourse with others, so that Cassian labels dejection the “gall of bitterness that is in possession of every corner of their heart.” [35] Interestingly, Cassian discusses how this demonic spirit is not necessarily a result of the actions of others, but actions of the self. Cassian elaborates that one in this state should not isolate himself, but rather continue to interact with his fellow monastic brethren. This in itself is a remedy against this spirit. [36]   The beginning of healing, according to Cassian, is correcting one’s faults, which leads the monk to find peace. In its extreme form, the demon of dejection can lead one to despair of salvation. This is the demon that led to Cain’s lack of repentance [37] and Judas’ suicide. [38]  However, Cassian goes on to discuss that some dejection is acceptable and therapeutic. This is the sorrow that leads an individual to penitence for sin. [39]  Finally, he ends the relevant chapter by noting that the way to terminate devilish dejection is spiritual meditation, and keeping the mind occupied with the hope of the future. In examining this chapter of Cassian’s work, clear symptoms emerge, as well as treatment modalities for what is considered depression in the modern world. In Book X of the Institutes , Cassian begins to describe accidie, or acedia, known as the “midday demon,” [40]  as Evagrius had also done, although in more detail in specific relation to the emotions. [41]  While similar to the demon of dejection, acedia consists of the added features of apathy, sluggishness, sloth, and irritability. In naming acedia the “midday demon,” Cassian posits that these demonic attacks often occur around the sixth hour and seize the monk. Carelessness and anxiousness are the main components of acedia, as well as frequent complaining. [42]  The monk looks anxiously and often sighs at his other brethren. There are also moments where he is idle and useless for spiritual work. Cassian notes that sometimes the midday demon can manifest in different forms: sometimes one may isolate more, and in other times one may become a busy-body and seek consolation from others — an action which Cassian describes as entanglement in secular business. [43]   Manual labor and work, Cassian suggests, are a good remedy to the midday demon of acedia. One suffering from this demon should employ the words of Paul the Apostle: “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” [44]  Cassian speculates that the West is void of monasteries and monks specifically because of idleness and acedia. Acedia is, in his mind, a direct result of idleness: “a monk who works is attacked by one devil; but an idler is tormented by countless spirits.” [45]  Babai, one of the Syriac writers and Fathers, also mentions this demon when he states: “beware of the impulses of the body when it is at rest, and do not let evil thoughts take up residence in your heart.” [46]  Cassian concludes that manual work and direct confrontation of acedia will lead to healing. [47]  Fleeing from acedia only makes the demonic attack worse. Examining the demons of dejection and acedia, one sees Cassian describing elements of depression and anxiety through the lens of Egyptian monasticism well before these terms came to have clinical significance. Depression is medically known as Major Depressive Disorder. Criteria for this disorder include many similarities to the aforementioned symptoms of the demon of dejection: feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and emptiness are oftentimes subjectively relayed by individuals with depression; [48]  there is also a decreased interest in pleasure and interaction with others. [49]  The famous author William Styron says about depression: “the weather of depression is unmodulated, its light a brownout.” [50]  Cassian mentioned that the Egyptian monks suffering from dejection oftentimes isolated from their fellow brethren, and described symptoms very closely aligned with depression according to its modern interpretation. Moreover, as the origin of depression is sometimes linked to triggering and stressful events, [51]  Cassian similarly recognized that often, anger and the lack of accomplishing a goal can lead to the demon of dejection. Anger and failure are, after all, often linked to stressful situations in an individual’s life. Regrettably, the majority of suicides are committed by individuals with depression. [52]  The end result of the demon of dejection is salvific despair; Cassian calls to mind the suicide of Judas, comparatively. In Cassian’s works, the ways prescribed to combat the demon of dejection are similar to those used to treat today’s clinical depression. Cassian described interaction with the fellow monks and also encountering one’s faults directly as a treatment to this demonic attack. Likewise, in the field of psychiatry, cognitive therapy and behavioral therapy seek to aid the patient in recognizing self-inflicted negative thought patterns and addressing negative behaviors, respectively. Group therapy also enables individuals to interact with others who experience similar symptoms to provide a sense of camaraderie. This leads the individual to correct negative thoughts of the self and to become more functional and interactive with others in society. [53] Acedia is similar to depression, anxiety, or a combination of both. Generalized Anxiety Disorder is a chronic anxiety disorder which consists of excessive worry manifesting in various symptoms such as restlessness, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and irritability. [54]  Cassian mentioned that acedia, the “midday demon,” often causes these symptoms. Sometimes the monk may isolate himself; other times he may frequently complain and be anxious. Often in anxiety and depression, one may be crippled and unable to interact socially. This leads them to a decrease in function in their everyday lives, an action identified also by Cassian in the monk struggling with this demon. Abba Moses tells Cassian that one must not flee from or suppress this demon, but rather to attack it straightaway. [55]  Likewise, in psychodynamic psychotherapy, the concept of repression is addressed. [56]  Repression is a defense mechanism utilized by many to avoid psychological distress by “keeping it away,” creating space between the emotion and the individual. [57]  But often, repression can worsen psychological distress and cause it to linger, and thus fails to correct the root cause of the illness. Essentially, Cassian writes that one must not use repression in fighting this demon, but to attack it head-on, and to utilize manual labor as a means to keep oneself busy. Here we see Cassian identifying psychological defense mechanisms that are yet to be fully defined during his time. It is through the behavioral therapy discussed above, in relation to dejection, that we see an individual being enabled to move from idleness to committing to a goal, such as manual or professional work, which can assist in the path to healing. It is clear, both through the therapy modalities discussed and in Cassian’s writings, that a commitment to a goal-oriented activity such as physical work can aid an individual by distracting from the anxious thoughts and feelings affecting them. In comparing the demonic to the psychological, one must realize that spiritual or demonic attacks do not necessarily equate to psychological suffering, and vice versa. The Holy Fathers made a distinction between illnesses caused by demons, and those that are from physiological or psychological origins. [58]  However, the problem of suffering and the goal of attaining healing is one and the same for both the diabolical and the psychological. In the Orthodox Church, this healing comes from Christ. [59] In the world of psychology, healing can come through various modalities, such as psychotherapy, medication, and psychosocial support. Although the definition of healing and the means by which to arrive at it may be different, the goal for the monk in Cassian’s writings, and for one struggling with mental illness, is healing. The battle of the thoughts, and spiritual-psychological attacks are not new occurrences. Even in modern monasticism, the attacks of the thoughts are evident, and can affect the monastic in his everyday struggle. [60]   Cassian provided to the West a unique view of the Egyptian desert. In relaying the struggles of, and demonic attacks encountered by, the monks, Cassian laid the foundations of the principle of overlap between mental health and spiritual health — an interaction that cannot be neglected. Whether today’s mental illnesses are caused by, either wholly or partially, the demonic attacks discussed by Cassian is a complex inquiry requiring further theological and psychological research. What is evidently clear, however, is that the monastic experience, possessing a deep anthropological and spiritual wisdom, ought not be divorced from contemporary social life, self-understanding, and approaches to psychological well-being. Indeed, if one wishes to delve deeper into understanding or treating illnesses such as depression or anxiety — or any other human ailment — they can look to the writings of the monastic fathers and find within them insights that deal with both physical and spiritual wellness in a thoroughly Christian manner. Those who struggle with depression or anxiety, for instance, have as an inspiration and cause of hope the example of the early monastic fathers, who identified, courageously combatted, and successfully overcame these demons by God’s grace and support, and early monastic writings, such as Cassian’s, which teach what the path of healing entails. In learning from the diabolical warfare experienced by the Egyptian monks, one can compare their struggle to these early ascetics and find in them a source of consolation and fellowship, potentially leading them to realize their own healing through the experience and wisdom of those who many centuries earlier, in the Egyptian Desert, suffered like them and emerged victorious over their suffering. — [1] Columba Stewart. Cassian the Monk . Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.1998.5. [2]  Ibid . [3]  Ibid ., 9-10. Scetis is the desert that is located West of the Nile, the region is known today as Wadi al-Natrun. 9. [4] The Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness, for instance, is documented in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. [5] Vincent Lampert. The Battle Against Satan and His Demons . Emmaus Road Publishing. 2020. 25. [6]  Ibid ., 26.  [7] Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria in 328 CE, and author of the Life of Antony. (Khaled Anatolius. Athanasius . The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge. 2004. 1, 24). [8] Athanasius and William A Clebsch . The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus . Translated by Robert C Gregg. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. 1980. 34-36. [9]  Ibid . [10] According to translator E.A. Wallis Budge’s preface, the Paradise of the Fathers  was written by Palladius, Jerome, and also included the Life of Antony  which was written by Athanasius. Budge translated the Paradise of the Fathers  from Syriac. ( Paradise of the Holy Fathers Volume One : Preface, 11). [11] E.A. Wallis Budge. Paradise of the Holy Fathers Volume One and Two . St Shenouda Press: 2009. 217-219. [12] Evagrius was a fourth-century monk who was a disciple of Gregory of Nazianzus. After living in Jerusalem briefly, Evagrius then fled to the Egyptian desert and became a disciple of Ammonius and the two Macarii (Macarius the Great and Macarius the Alexandrian). Soon becoming a teacher, Evagrius was known in his documenting demonic attacks that encountered the monastics. (Evagrius. Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons . Translated by David Brakke. Cistercian Studies Series, No. 229. Trappist, Ky.: Cistercian Publications, 2009. 3). [13] E.A. Wallis Budge . Paradise of the Holy Fathers : Volume One and Two. St Shenouda Press: 2009. 219. [14] The Rule of Saint Benedict was the monastic rule that was established in the West by Benedict. This system spread throughout Europe and draws upon the writings of John Cassian, Basil, and the Lives of the Fathers. (John Michael Talbot. Blessings of St. Benedict . Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. 2011. IX). [15] Evagrius Pontikus . The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer . Trans. and Introduction: John Eudes Bamberger. Cistercian Publications: 1972. Preface by J. Leclerq: XIV. [16] Evagrius, XIV. [17]  Ibid . [18] Evagrius . Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons . Translated by David Brakke. Cistercian Studies Series, No. 229. Trappist, Ky.: Cistercian Publications, 2009. 6. [19] Evagrius Pontikus . The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer . Trans. and Introduction: John Eudes Bamberger. Cistercian Publications: 1972. Preface by J. Leclerq: xiv. [20] Columba Stewart. Cassian the Monk . Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. 4. [21]  Ibid ., 5. [22]  Ibid ., 5. [23]  Ibid ., 4.; John Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople and was deposed in a controversial synod known as the Synod of the Oak in the early fifth century. The controversy involved Theophilus of Alexandria and an Alexandrian following, as well as a group of Origenist monks from Nitria (Wendy Mayer, Pauline Allen, and John Chrysostom. John Chrysostom . The Early Church Fathers. Taylor and Francis Group. London: Routledge, 2000. doi:10.4324/9780203029039. 10). [24] Stewart, 8. [25] These two writings are known colloquially as the Conferences  and the Institutes , respectively, and will be written as such throughout the paper. [26] John Cassian. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Chapter IX: 2000. [27] Christopher J. Kelly. Cassian's Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal . Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies . London: Routledge. 2016. X. [28] Avarice is also known as the love of money. [29] Acedia is also known as accidie or listlessness. [30] John Cassian. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle.1499. [31] Throughout his writings, Cassian interchangeably uses demons, vices, faults, and spirits as the same thing. As mentioned earlier in the paper, Cassian moved slightly away from utilizing foreign demonic references in order to try to be more practical and personal in his approach in relaying a cosmic reality in spiritually applicable ways. [32] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Book IX: Of the Spirit of Dejection: 2007. [33]  Ibid ., Chapter I: 2014. [34]  Ibid ., Chapter IV: 2030. [35]  Ibid . [36]  Ibid ., Chapter VII: 2046. [37]  Genesis 4:1-18 (OSB) [38]  Matthew 27:3-5 (OSB) [39] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Book IX: Of the Spirit of Dejection: Chapter X: 2007. [40] John Cassian . The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. 2015. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter I: 2007. [41] Ryan Lamothe . “An Analysis of Acedia.” Pastoral Psychology 56 , no. 1 (2007) 15–30. doi:10.1007/s11089-007-0096-8. 17. [42] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. 2015. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter II: 2101. [43]  Ibid ., Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter 3: 2117.  [44]  II Thessalonians 3:10  (OSB) [45] John Cassian . The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter XXIII: 2007. [46] Sebastian P. Brock. The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life . Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1987. Chapter VII: 151 [47] John Cassian . The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter XXV: 2359. [48] B.J. Sadock. V. A. Sadock, & P. Ruiz. Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry  (Eleventh edition.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. 2015. 357. [49]  Ibid . [50] William Styron . Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness . New York: Random House, 1990. 19. [51] Sadock, 354. [52] Sadock, 764. [53]  Ibid ., 372-373. [54]  Ibid ., 409. [55] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter XXV: 2359. [56] Nancy McWilliams . Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process . New York: The Guilford Press, Second Edition. 2011. Print. 127. [57] McWilliams, 127. [58] Razvan Brudiu. Human Suffering and Its Healing According to Jean-Claude Larchet . European Journal of Science and Theology , September 2012, Vol.8, Supplement 2, 284-285. [59]  Ibid ., 287. [60] Anna Smiljanic. Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives: The Life and Teachings of Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica . Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2009. 29.  — Bibliography Primary Sources Athanasius, and William A Clebsch . The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus . Trans. Robert C Gregg. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. 1980. Budge, Wallis. Paradise of the Holy Fathers Volume One and Two.  St Shenouda Press. 2009. Cassian, John. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Cassian, John. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Evagrius. Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons . Translated by David Brakke. Cistercian Studies Series, No. 229. Trappist, Ky.: Cistercian Publications. 2009. Ponticus, Evagrius. The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer . Trans. John Eudes Bamberger. Cistercian Publications. 1972. Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (Eleventh edition.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. 2015.   Secondary Sources Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius . The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge. 2004. Brock, Sebastian P. The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life.  Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications. 1987. Brudiu, Razvan. Human Suffering and Its Healing According to Jean-Claude Larchet . European Journal of Science and Theology,  September 2012. Vol.8, Supplement 2, 281-287. Jones, Christopher D. “The Problem of Acedia in Eastern Orthodox Morality.” Studies in Christian Ethics 33 . 2020. (3): 336–51. doi:10.1177/0953946819847652. Kelly, Christopher J. Cassian's Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies.  London: Routledge. 2016. LaMothe, Ryan. “An Analysis of Acedia.” Pastoral Psychology 56, no. 1  (2007): 15–30. doi:10.1007/s11089-007-0096-8. Lampert, Vincent . The Battle Against Satan and His Demons . Emmaus Road Publishing 1468. Parkview Circle Steubenville, Ohio : 2020. Kindle. Mayer, Wendy, Pauline Allen, and John Chrysostom. John Chrysostom.  The Early Church Fathers. Taylor and Francis Group. London: Routledge, 2000. doi:10.4324/9780203029039. McWilliams, Nancy . Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process . New York: The Guilford Press, Second Edition. 2011. Print. Smiljanic, Anna (trans). Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives: The Life and Teachings of Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica . Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. 2009. Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk . Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Styron, William. Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness . New York: Random House. 1990. Talbot, John Michael. Blessings of St. Benedict . Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. 2011. — Abraham Ghattas is a Coptic Orthodox Christian who practices psychiatry in Houston, Texas. He holds a bachelor's degree in Psychology with a concentration in Behavioral Neuroscience, as well as a minor degree in Religious Studies from Purdue University. He received his DO medical degree from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. He is board certified in Psychiatry and works as a Staff Psychiatrist at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, TX. He is also on faculty at Baylor University College of Medicine as an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors, and holds a Certificate in Early Christian Studies from St. Athanasius and St. Cyril Theological School (ACTS) in California. He has lectured on Crisis Intervention and Trauma Counseling as part of the Family Ministry Program. He has also lectured on anxiety, depression, substance use, development, and the overlap of mental health and Orthodox spirituality to youth, adolescents, servants, adults, and parents. He enjoys spirituality, Philosophy, Patristics, Christology, and Church History. Cover Art: Lelio Orsi, The Temptation of St. Anthony, 1570s. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

His Grace Bishop Suriel Bishop of Melbourne, Australia and Professor at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, New Jersey, United States Thus far in our series,[1] we have examined in broad strokes the experience of the early Church, and particularly the “schools” of Alexandria, and that of a modern Coptic Orthodox religious educator and visionary, St. Habib Girgis, in our discussion of foundational considerations for theological education in the Coptic Orthodox Church. We turn now in our discourse to the Church today, applying herein what we have gleaned from our previous discussions in considering what challenges face the Coptic Church today, whether and how theological education factors into understanding, addressing, and overcoming those challenges, and what sound theological education might look like in practice in the Church today, particularly in the West. We have seen significant change in the last 50 years, with the rate of change increasing every decade. We now live in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, and it is our duty therefore to equip ecclesial leaders with the proper training to enable them to lead the Church in this ever-changing landscape. In our parishes, we serve several generations concurrently, including Generation Y (those born between 1980 and 1995), Generation Zed, or Generation Z as it is called in America (those born between 1995 and 2010), and the latest generation, Generation Alpha (those born between 2010 and today). Today’s world is increasingly secular, with religion holding little place in mainstream society. Our people, particularly our young people, are radically challenged by Atheism, Secularism, and Relativism amongst others. How will we faithfully minister to them? How will we serve future generations? The need for high quality theological education is now even more pressing than it was in the twentieth century. The world is quite different today than it was in previous centuries, let alone in previous decades, particularly in the West. When we speak of theological education proper, we mean the formal preparation of our future priests, bishops, servants, missionaries, and Church leaders. In 2013, His Holiness Pope Tawadros II invited Fr. Dr. John Behr, the regis chair in humanities at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, to a conference on theological education in Egypt to speak about theological education in the twenty-first century. Fr. John reminded us that we are not preparing our students for today’s world, but for tomorrow’s, and it is for this that we need to be equipping our people — again, not for today’s world, but for tomorrow’s. If our situation is difficult now, it will be even more difficult in the decades to come, and it is for this reason that we need to properly equip our people. We are facing an increasingly hostile environment. We must also remember that the general level of education in the Coptic community has skyrocketed. In fact, Generation Z is the most educated generation ever, with at least half of those born in that generation having University degrees, compared to a mere quarter of Generation X (those born between 1965 and 1980). The mind of the twenty-first-century person is very different from that of the twentieth-century person. Our young people are taught to think critically, question sources, and investigate rigorously. Studies of young people have shown that they are forming their own spirituality from influences in a heavily saturated media culture. Young people living in a secular society are subject to an “electronically conditioned global village culture that colors their view of religion itself and offers many alternative sources of meaning and values that can be incorporated into identity.”[2] The context in which ministry is happening today is vastly different from that of the family-centered, community-focused, and less secular world that existed in previous generations. Studies also show that “contemporary spirituality is individualistic, eclectic, subjective and secular, where little is drawn from the religious tradition, and scant affiliation is made with a specific community.”[3] Yes, these studies were not conducted on young Coptic Orthodox people, but it would be naive to think that our own data would be vastly different from this, especially as to second- and third-generation Copts in the West. How are we to face these challenges today, and the ones to come? Clergy, servants, and leaders must be equipped to serve in the times and cultures in which we live. We have clearly seen in our Church’s history what happens when there is an absence or lack of sound theological education. Is it enough for future clergy to be formed in Sunday School, Pre-Servants Training, and other parish ministries? Habib Girgis made the case for this at the beginning of the twentieth century. Does the current situation not beckon an even more pressing need? Perhaps the opportunity for widespread theological education was not feasible in the twentieth century Coptic Orthodox Church in the West due to many factors, such as the rapid foundation and immense expansion of Coptic communities there due to migration. Certainly all of the dedicated clergy, servants, and leaders who served the Church in the West with their blood, sweat, and tears did a magnificent job in engraining Coptic Orthodox life, spirituality, and identity amongst their children and the young people in their communities. These efforts met the needs of the Church in the twentieth century. How will we meet the needs of the Church in this twenty-first century? Our young people, as we have all seen in our ministry, differ from previous generations, and we are duty-bound to serve them faithfully, answer their questions thoroughly, and never sell them short. How can we do this without proper theological education? Habib Girgis faced many financial difficulties, which is understandable as the Church herself at that time faced many financial difficulties as a whole. These constraints prevented him from implementing a lasting legacy of theological education that comported to his vision — one that met or even exceeded international standards. I believe it is safe to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West does not have these financial constraints today. We have been blessed with the resources to expand and build many churches and church buildings. Is it not now due time to focus on devoting financial resources to robust theological education, sending students to receive accredited degrees and awards so that they can teach, and sponsoring candidates for ordination to study before being ordained so that they have the time and resources to faithfully devote themselves to their own formation in order to then be able to properly form and educate their future congregants? We spend tens of millions of dollars on beautiful churches that can become museum pieces or meet a variety of similar fates if we do not learn from the rich legacy of the early Church and of Habib Girgis and turn our attention to theological education before it becomes too late. Perhaps some might oppose this attention to theological education and say that we should focus on the “pastoral” needs of the community. Is it either healthy or intellectually honest to pit pastoral care and academic or theological instruction against one another in this way? If pastoral ministry is the service of others, how can it be carried out, and that correctly, if it is not grounded in the fullness of the revelation of God? To so portray the pastoral and the educative is a false dichotomy. Both must go hand in hand in order for them to be founded upon a truly Apostolic foundation capable of soundly meeting the needs of others — needs that are not only spiritual or social, but also intellectual, theological, and dogmatic. Allow me to illustrate this using an example. Habib Girgis introduced Sunday Schools into the Coptic Orthodox Church at a time when religious education was lacking. He used the model developed in England in 1788 and modified by Protestants in America in the following century. As we have seen in the last 100 years, this initiative bore much fruit. Where can you find a Coptic Orthodox Church in the world without Sunday School today? In establishing the modern Sunday School movement, a key consideration was the viability of the movement — that is, being founded upon no recent underpinning, the emphasis was on providing a sustainable education where there had been none previously. However, the situation has now changed: teaching is now established in the Coptic Orthodox Church and the model of Christian education being employed therein now needs to be re-examined in light of today’s generational profile and a properly Orthodox understanding of education. Sunday School, which is a pastoral ministry, can only faithfully serve our children and youth in the twenty-first century if it is appropriately grounded theologically and culturally relevant to the demographic it seeks to serve. This is not a matter of curriculum or content, but one of approach. How do we as a Church understand the formation of the child, the teenager, and the young man and woman? Is this something that happens in the classroom pedagogically, or in the life of the Church experientially, or both? Such questions require rigorous study, investigation, and discussion, and these considerations represent an important component of the task of theological education in the Church today. Theological education is not the same as any other academic endeavor. We must remember that Theology is not some abstract discipline where we learn about God. We cannot set Theology amongst or as equivalent to all other academic disciplines. Such academic disciplines can be mastered through diligent study, teaching, investigation, and even experimentation. The same cannot be said of Theology, since it does not speak of God as those speak of any other subject, but, as the early Christians saw it, it is an affirmation of the divinity of the crucified and exalted Lord Jesus Christ. Theology is not merely some theoretical teaching about God, but as Didymus the Blind states, “it is a power, glory, and force that is able to perform great wonders.” Theology operates beyond intellectual reasoning and deduction. It can be said that Theology is primarily an encounter between God and the one who attempts to theologize. Theology is not simply an academic enterprise, as we have seen from our earlier discussion on the School of Alexandria. Theological education in the Alexandrine tradition was to disciple people to the Christian life. This emphasizes that the classroom and the altar are inseparable in theological education. The language of theology is not primarily developed in the classroom, but in prayer and worship — the whole liturgical life of the Church. This framework is expounded upon in the classroom or lecture theater and expressed practically in service or fieldwork. One may ask, “Why, then, do we need to have accredited theological institutions?” We cannot sell our students short. We must provide them with the highest caliber of teachers possible, and the most robust training and teaching they can have. The students we present and recommend for service in the Church, whether in the ministry of teaching or otherwise, will not only minister to those who have grown up in the Church, but also to people whose lives are radically challenged by Secularism, Atheism, and Relativism — all struggles we all, whether young or old, face every day in the West, and now increasingly even in the East. We must not forget that we are called to share the Gospel with others, especially in ways that they can appreciate and understand. Our understanding of the Faith must be at least as sophisticated as anything with which the world challenges us. Our people, especially the young, cannot be used to thinking in a critical manner at school and work, and then come to church to find that their questions are being answered unsatisfactorily or unconvincingly, or brushed aside, or dismissed. We must provide our people full and informed answers when we are asked a question — any question — and must in turn ensure that those who occupy positions of teaching in the Church receive the highest caliber of education in order to be able to competently and effectively carry out their ministry. This demands both integrity and accountability — indeed, integrity and accountability are among the most basic spiritual and educational principles — and practically requires that our educational programs are assessed by others who are both unbiased and well equipped to opine on their adequacy and robustness. This is realized through accreditation, where our educational institutions are regularly assessed by an impartial accrediting or governing body to ensure that those who teach are qualified to do so and have spent years dedicated to wrestling with their chosen areas of study and have been tested in both the methodology and content of their teaching and studies. Receiving accreditation means full recognition from the necessary disinterested bodies and being called to account by others who are properly qualified to ensure that we are acting with integrity in the education we provide our people. As part of theological education, it is incumbent upon our educational institutions to not only teach Patristics, Biblical Studies, Theology, Liturgics, Liturgical Theology, and languages, but also Religious Education, Youth Ministry, Parish Formation (the formation of a parish community), ministry to the sick and dying, Apologetics, Christian Counseling, Prison Ministry, and much more. To become able to do so, we must first promote and encourage scholarship among our people, including facilitating for them both the resources they need to dedicate their time and efforts to study and investigation with the spirit of discipleship as well as the appropriate infrastructural systems to ensure that they do not complete their studies only to be left with nowhere to serve or teach and no way to make a living, as St. Habib Girgis mentions, in his 1938 book on the history of the Seminary, regarding the 22 graduates of the Seminary who were left without work. It is not enough for the Christian educator to know facts; more than this, it is about a way of thinking — a methodology. Studying Theology at an Orthodox theological school is not like studying Theology at a secular university. It requires, and must require, the same intellectual rigor, but our teaching and study as Orthodox Christians must be driven by the theological vision itself. In late antiquity, education was viewed as Paideia, “a training that seeks, above all, formation. Formation examines the habits of the heart that constitute a good theologian. The focus is on identity rather than information: being a certain kind of person rather than knowing a specific body of knowledge.”[4] Seminaries “train professional leaders, people who will both ‘profess’ the Faith in fresh ways and function as professionals, i.e., display the skills and competencies appropriate to their calling. Church leaders today need what Church leaders have always needed — training in what theology is all about and training in how to do it on the ground.”[5] This is not only about having theological institutions, but also about respecting theological education as a Church. Asking: “What do those who have studied have to say to us as a Church?” This requires us to respect expertise more than mere experience. Just because someone has been serving, or served, in a particular church for a long time, or was a popular or respected servant in the Church, does not make that person an “expert” or imply that what that person taught or how that person conducted his or her service should necessarily be emulated or sustained. What should be considered is expertise, in order to allow the many voices in the Church to sing a beautiful symphony of sound Orthodoxy that is in line with the Biblical, Patristic, and Liturgical witness. I will conclude with a final point — one that was briefly mentioned in the first entry of this series. We must read carefully and wrestle with the ancient Christian texts, in order to allow the writers of antiquity to speak to us today. We must do so both by consulting accurate translations of the ancient sources and through the mouths of their modern readers. We must oblige our responsibility of academic honesty and have the courage to be accurate, precise, and specific in our research efforts. It is not enough to simply read the Fathers. Rather, the Fathers need to be studied in terms of both their content and context. We in the Church today face an ongoing struggle with many voices presenting opposing views on various important theological matters, such as salvation, Christology, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and many other points. These have been the subjects of contention for decades, both within our own Church and more broadly between Christian denominations, and the discussion becomes even more pertinent when it enters the sphere of ecumenical dialogue. We as a Church must be honest in examining our past, particularly the last century, to see if what was widely taught stands in line with the understanding of the Church Fathers as set forth in their writings. In doing so, we ought to respect academic integrity. We cannot sideline without adequate discussion and exploration those who have views that do not align with what is understood or recognized to be today’s mainstream thought. This must be done using the appropriate theological methodology — something that is best learned through proper theological education. Those before us in the twentieth century used the means and methods at their disposal in often challenging circumstances. It is now up to us to build on their efforts, even if it means reconsidering some of the teachings presented in the (recent) past in light of our understanding of the Church’s Theology as expressed through her Biblical, Patristic, and Liturgical witness properly understood. In doing so, we do not by any means question the piety or holiness of the lives of those whose teachings we may question. Rather, as a Church, we consider that Theology is not the work of individuals, but the work of the whole Church, and we must reflect and learn from our past. Will we sideline those who have studied and have, after sound study and rigorous examination, and with the necessary spiritual prerequisites, come to hold opinions that may not be considered mainstream today? Will we remain silent when clergymen or members of the laity preach doctrine that lacks any appropriate academic or theological rigor? According theological education its rightful place as a pillar in the Church protects us from those individuals who wish to render themselves self-proclaimed theologians, whether maliciously or not, especially when the various communication platforms available today make it easy to do so, particularly on social media. Let us take seriously the call to ministering in the West in the twenty-first century by valuing theological education. This is by all means achievable. All other major Christian denominations are found to do this; they require those whom they appoint as clergy, servants, and leaders to be adequately trained and educated. We too can do so, in the spirit of the Alexandrine tradition, which will surely include unique elements not present in Western approaches to theological education that will bring to light the depths of the riches of our two-thousand-year heritage. May the Lord guide the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West to raise theological education as a top priority in her ministry, to the salvation of many and the glory of God, to Whom be glory in His holy Church forever. Amen. — [1] See Part One — The Experience of the Early Church; Part Two — The Experience of St. Habib Girgis and the Coptic Orthodox Seminary. [2] Crawford, M.L. & Rossiter, G. M. (2006). Reasons for living: Education and young people’s search for meaning, identity and spirituality. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. [3] Michael Salib, A Multidimensional Understanding of Sunday School in the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, in Copts in Modernity, 257–269. [4] Martha E. Stortz, Re-Imagining Theological Education for the Twenty-First Century: “What Has Theological Ed to do with Higher Ed?”, in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2011, December, 373-379, at 373. [5] Id. at 375. — His Grace Bishop Suriel presently serves as a Professor at the Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary in New Jersey, United States. We are honored to announce that Season Two of His Grace Bishop Suriel’s podcast, Coffee with Bishop Suriel, is also coming soon! Subscribe to Coffee with Bishop Suriel to receive the latest news. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

His Grace Bishop Suriel Bishop of Melbourne, Australia and Professor at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, New Jersey, United States Having briefly set forth, in Part One of this series, an overview of Christian education as it was carried out in the early Church, and particularly in the “schools” of Alexandria, let us now shift our focus to modern Coptic history, and specifically the work of St. Habib Girgis in theological education in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Prior to embarking on that endeavor, however, it is important to note that little is known about the theological developments that arose in Egypt immediately following the Arab Conquest, and whatever we know today comes from the literary productions of isolated theologians of that period rather than from any consistent or uniform theological school of thought. The thirteenth century is considered by some scholars to be the “age” of Coptic Orthodox Theology and Dogmatics, which was followed by 300 years of silence in the field of Coptic Orthodox Theology. By the late Middle Ages, the situation in the Coptic Orthodox Church was quite dire. A seventeenth century German theologian and traveler describes his visit to a Sunday liturgy in the Coptic Orthodox Church, writing: “They [the Copts] do not keep or have preachers nor are those good priests suitable. Instead of the sermon, there is reading after the Gospel of a homily from a book called tafâsîr (explanations), taken from one of the Fathers, such as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophilus, Abbot Bussi, and people of that sort. For some time, the Franciscans have been preaching in Arabic among the Copts, and as a result they have been converting Copts to Catholicism with their exemplary lifestyle.”[1] By the middle of the nineteenth century, historians note that many among the clergy, reflecting their social surroundings, were ignorant of and negligent in their religious duties. Coming from the lower classes of the community, these clergymen often made up for their previous probations either by misusing church property or selling their religious services. The Church, plagued with widespread ignorance, had then a bleak future and was under external threat from Western missionaries while facing constant internal struggles, with the educated lay people calling for reform. By this time, Protestant and Catholic missionaries were active in Egypt and began posing threats to Coptic identity, as they were generally far more theologically educated than the Coptic clergy of that time. Needless to say, the need for a clerical school to educate Coptic Orthodox clergymen in the Faith of the Church became particularly pressing under these dire conditions. The first attempt at establishing such a clerical school was the opening of a clerical college on January 13, 1875 during the papacy of Pope Cyril V.[2] This institution was enthusiastically hailed as a new incarnation of the ancient Catechetical School of Alexandria. However, few of the students — all monks from the monasteries — applied themselves to their studies, and the Seminary survived only a few months. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Coptic Orthodox Church was in all the more urgent need for a seminary for the formation of her priests. St. Habib Girgis comments: “Since religious service was among the most esteemed services to the Church and its position was the highest, this required, therefore, that pastors [الرعاة] be sufficiently prepared in the Orthodox faith. They needed to be especially cared for and to be chosen from among those with excellent qualifications, from the sons of the community generally. Various efforts and finances are also required for the sake of these pastors who will lead the community to the place of safety and for the benefit hoped for.”[3] Habib Girgis could not imagine a priest serving without the education necessary to equip him for such an important role. He understood how impossible it would be for any person to be employed in a profession or trade without having first undergone the necessary training; how much more important, then, was proper religious training for a priest who was responsible for the souls of people! He wrote: “But 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] perfects 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. In this way, he may transcend to a most eminent relationship with the eternal souls [he pastors].”[4] According to Habib Girgis, in the second half of the nineteenth century there was only one priest in all of Egypt who was both capable of preaching and well versed in the Orthodox faith: Hegumen Philotheos Ibrahim Baghdadi, who lived from 1837 until 1904. This historical background underscores the importance of the dedication ceremony that took place on November 29, 1893 — a date widely considered to be the official opening of the Coptic Orthodox Seminary in Cairo, which Habib Girgis considered to be the greatest success of Pope Cyril V. When the Seminary opened, it had no teacher of religion or theology. Its first dean, Yusuf Mankarios, would simply choose some religious books and hand them out to the students to read aloud in front of him. Students complained repeatedly to the Pope and to the Lay Community Council about the lack of proper theological instruction, but to no avail. This bizarre situation continued for four years and led many students to leave the Seminary. There was one attempt to rectify the situation: on January 13, 1896, the Lay Community Council appointed the  aforementioned Hegumen Philotheos, who was then quite elderly, to teach at the Seminary. Sadly, however, his tenure lasted only two weeks, after which he collapsed in class due to his old age and illness and would never return. Habib Girgis was one of 12 graduates of the great Coptic School who were chosen to be part of the first class of 40 students to enter the Seminary. Many of his cohorts dropped out because of lack of interest or academic ability, but Habib Girgis was a bright scholar who, given his academic prowess and exceptional talent, as well as the Seminary’s need for a capable teacher, was appointed by a special decree to teach religion on a temporary basis during his final year. He graduated shortly thereafter — the first to graduate from the newly re-established Seminary — and on May 8, 1898, having shown great potential and success as an instructor, he was promptly appointed to a full-time position at the Seminary, teaching Theology and Homiletics. Habib Girgis compared the relationship between the Seminary and the Coptic community to that between the heart and the body. He says, “for as the duty of the heart is to pump blood to the organs of the body, accordingly, from this spring, the spirit of teaching, guidance, and the transmission of the good news of salvation will spread among people.”[5] The mission of the Seminary was twofold: to teach Orthodox Theology and doctrine, and to form priests and preachers who would enlighten the other members of the Coptic community, both young and old. The first statutes for the Seminary were formulated in 1893, prescribed a five-year period of study, and listed the subjects to be taught. All were taught by foreigners, with the exception of Theology, which was to be taught, from the third year of coursework onwards, by a capable Orthodox priest. The statutes promulgated thereafter, in 1912, addressed numerous administrative matters: all students were required to live at the Seminary, sleeping in dormitories or large rooms, and it was only with special permission that a student could lodge outside the Seminary. Class sizes were capped at 25 students, and admission requirements included passing an entrance exam, presenting three letters of recommendation, including one from the prospective student’s diocesan bishop, a minimum age in practice — of 16 years old — and at least four years of elementary school education. Each applicant was required to undergo a medical examination and be physically fit, without blemish or physical deformity. Applicants were also required to nominate a sponsor — an individual who would vouch for the prospective student’s character, commitment to completing his studies, and willingness to be employed wherever the need arose and to continue in religious ministry following his completion of the Seminary’s curriculum. The statutes also extended to the lives of priests and teachers beyond the confines of the Seminary. For example, the Board could transfer a preacher from one place to another according to need and circumstance. Preachers were required to prepare for the Board an annual report of their ministry. Parish priests were only permitted to allow graduates of the Seminary to preach in their parishes, and had to obtain written permission from the Pope. The Seminary maintained a record of qualified preachers and each year announced the names of the new graduate preachers along with their places of ministry. These regulations served two purposes: they ensured that those who preached were properly trained and formed at the Seminary and preached according to the Coptic Orthodox Faith, and prevented followers of other religious denominations from infiltrating Coptic Orthodox parishes and preaching views and ideas that were not in accordance with Coptic Orthodox Theology. Such measures afforded the Coptic Orthodox community a layer of protection by ensuring that those who preached came from a reliable source approved by the Pope himself. When Habib Girgis was appointed dean of the Seminary in 1918, he inherited an institution with virtually no organizational structure, vision, or sense of direction. The curriculum was inadequate in many ways, particularly with regard to religious and theological education — the very purpose for which the Seminary had been established. Financial constraints led to friction between Habib Girgis and the Lay Community Council, and Habib Girgis felt stymied in his efforts to improve the Seminary’s infrastructure, increase faculty salaries, and meet daily running expenses, among several other concerns. As dean of the Seminary, Habib Girgis had his work cut out for him. He took on a monumental list of reforms under dire circumstances, embracing a task that might have discouraged even the most formidable and talented of educators. He described his love for the Seminary and his zeal for education and theological reform in strong metaphorical language, likening it to the shedding of blood, putting one’s life and spirit at its service, and the kindling of fire and hope in one’s heart. Amidst those financial difficulties, a committee presented a report in February 1927 which acknowledged the Seminary’s financial hardship and the economic crisis that the country at large was then facing, asking only for what was considered to be essential, fundamental, and practical. Acknowledging Habib Girgis’ great endeavors in developing the Seminary religiously, spiritually, and academically, the committee sought the support of the Patriarchate Church Council, the Lay Community Council, and the Pope to raise standards even further. The committee desired that all faculty be appropriately qualified, both academically and spiritually, with preference given to clerical school graduates who had completed the higher level coursework. This would entail transferring to other schools certain faculty members who were deemed unqualified to teach at the Seminary. The report also stressed the importance of having qualified lecturers, preferably chosen from among the higher level graduates of the Seminary, or from those holding higher diplomas from other Schools, Colleges, or Universities. The low salaries paid to local faculty affected their morale and gave them little incentive to improve their academic standards. Habib Girgis understood their predicament and made repeated requests for increased pay, to no avail. He wrote bitterly to the Patriarchate Church Council saying: “I have said that the moral state of the teachers is unacceptable and their spirits are low with pain and overburdened with hardships. How can a teacher work while his mind is disturbed and his soul is in pain and in a miserable state?”[6] Receiving meager wages, the existing lecturers showed little desire to develop their knowledge and skills and found no incentive to exert themselves to strive for academic excellence among their students. The report that was presented alongside the budget emphasized that the Seminary was the “spine” of the Coptic Church and the measure of its revival and refinement, and argued that the new proposed system would raise standards to a level suited to modern developments and circumstances. Despite all the work by the committee that had been expressly appointed by the Patriarchate Church Council, there was no immediate response. Habib Girgis followed up with a letter to the Council on May 31, 1927, after the academic year had ended, seeking a response so that improvements could begin at the start of the new academic year. Almost two months later, he received a hasty and brief reply requesting a report on the last academic year before the committee could look into the new curriculum. Both Habib Girgis and the committee must have been deeply frustrated by this apparent lack of interest from the very body that had demanded such a thorough inquiry and imposed such a stringent deadline. The reasons for the Patriarchate Church Council’s ambivalence are unclear; the most likely explanation is a lack of sufficient funds to implement their recommendations, although the Council may also have been attempting to exert its authority over the Seminary. Habib Girgis regularly wrote with sorrow to the Patriarchate Church Council about its lack of financial support. The following appeal is from 1929, but the sentiments expressed therein remain true throughout Habib Girgis’ career as dean: “This state has disadvantaged the welfare of the College and the welfare of education, and if this continues the situation will be worse. Who then will carry that responsibility? This, no doubt, is an injustice that no member of the council would accept, and since I have raised this complaint and have not had a response except that the budget does not allow for more, why then does the budget accommodate all [the Patriarchate’s] facilities, yet is only restrictive toward the Clerical School, which is more worthy than any other facility and should be given attention more than any other work?”[7] Habib Girgis appointed foreign lecturers to teach subjects for which no qualified Coptic Orthodox teachers could be found. For instance, in October 1928, he announced that the Seminary’s elite group of instructors of Theology, the humanities, and Law had been joined by the honorable Mr. John Leonard Wilson, who held a higher degree in Theology from Oxford University, to teach Philosophy of Religion. Habib Girgis understood that appointing a highly-credentialed scholar from Oxford would help raise both the academic standards and prestige of the Seminary. While he did not allow non-orthodox doctrine to be taught to his students, Habib Girgis looked beyond dogma to the other benefits that such a scholar could bring. In May 1942, Habib Girgis outlined the further refinement of the curriculum of the Seminary. He restructured the Seminary by dividing it into nine “streams,” or programs. There would now be only one level for the main course of study, which was primarily for those studying so as to receive ordination thereafter to the priesthood, requiring four years to complete. The Sunday School Teacher’s program would require three years of part-time study, comprising two lessons per week. The clerical program for ordained priests would also be part-time over a three-year period, but with six lessons per week, into which Habib Girgis proposed introducing the subject of Comparative Theology. Unfortunately, the 1942 plan only partially came to fruition due to a lack of funding. In 1946, Habib Girgis introduced further part-time study in the evenings for University graduates who were employed and still desired to serve as volunteers in their own parishes. Many leaders of Sunday Schools from Cairo and Giza enrolled in the Seminary at that time, although women were not admitted until October of 1959, nearly eight years after Habib Girgis’ death. Sadly, however, the Lay Community Council ordered the closure of this new Graduate Seminary during Habib Girgis’ last illness.[8] The Seminary still struggled to find qualified Coptic Orthodox faculty members to teach, eventually conceding that if no suitable Coptic Orthodox teacher could be found, a theological teacher might be recruited from another, preferably Orthodox, denomination. The depressingly low pay rates were still in place, even in 1948. The average teacher was earning only around 12 Egyptian Pounds per month. Girgis as dean was paid just over 40 Egyptian Pounds per month, while Cantor Mikhail Jirjis was earning less than four Egyptian Pounds per month to teach liturgical hymnology. There was also the continuing dilemma over whether to send students abroad to gain higher qualifications in western Seminaries and Universities. Habib Girgis struggled with this predicament throughout his career. In November 1945, the committee suggested that some of the Seminary's brighter graduates be sent abroad to study Hebrew and Greek, in order that they might, upon their return, replace foreign faculty members. It was also decided at this time to form an administrative committee for the Seminary consisting of three metropolitans chosen by the Holy Synod, three members of the organizing committee, the dean, and two members of the faculty. Its role would be to examine every nomination to the priesthood from across Egypt and present its recommendations to the Pope for his approval. Any ordination carried out in defiance of that system would be considered void. This move would bring an unprecedented degree of centralization to the Church and greater authority for the Pope. Habib Girgis wished only to ensure that those who had earned their qualifications at the Seminary would be ordained to the priesthood, and no one else. Whether this goal was achievable is open to question. The decree was followed to a great extent during the papacy of Pope Cyril VI but less closely thereafter. It is important to note that alongside his diligent work in theological education, Habib Girgis worked in parallel on expanding the work of Sunday Schools in the Coptic Orthodox Church. In fact, he based much of the work of Sunday Schools at the Seminary, which was a strategic move, as the Seminary was the heart of education in the Church and became an environment where Habib Girgis could test his ideas and theories on both faculty and students, with the Seminary also providing the right environment for the protection of pedagogical approaches, textbooks, and curricula. Having discussed the great work of Habib Girgis in the service of theological education in the Coptic Orthodox Church during his lifetime, the question now becomes whether he ultimately achieved his ambitions for the Coptic Orthodox Seminary. Because his work there was central to his mission of reforming the Coptic Orthodox Church and community, success or failure in that enterprise meant success or failure at broader reform. The verdict of history is not unanimous. In his 1938 book on the history of the Seminary, Habib Girgis observed that in the 45 years since its opening in 1893, the Seminary had produced a total of 320 graduates, two metropolitans, 209 priests, and 87 preachers and teachers (he did not mention the cantors), and acknowledged that 22 graduates were still without work. Many of the graduates had served the Church and the community in capacities other than the priesthood, such as by teaching Sunday School, leading youth groups, and joining Coptic Societies. Graduates of the Seminary had a profound influence on the Coptic Orthodox Church and community. Nonetheless, later in life, Habib Girgis soberly reflected on the Seminary's progress and said: “The Theological School was established half a century ago. It should have reached, by now, the standard of the finest Colleges. Regretfully, however, it did not receive the required support for its development. Instead, it spent most of its life in wasted struggle, fighting to survive and develop according to the weak means it possessed.”[9] The culmination of Habib Girgis’ work at the Seminary was its official recognition and accreditation in July 1948 by Egypt’s Minister of Education. The Minister recognized the qualification granted by the Coptic Orthodox Seminary as the equivalent of a four-year Bachelor’s degree. Nevertheless, the Seminary never reached the international standards to which Habib Girgis aspired. The prerequisites for admission remained low, as relatively few young Coptic men were interested in studying theology or pursuing a priestly calling — a vocation that enjoyed little prestige in the Coptic community at that time. Habib Girgis never achieved his ambition of an educated priesthood made up solely of men with a proper theological training from the Seminary. Although one can sense through his writings the bitterness he felt at the end of his life because his goals were not fully met, he is found in the same writings nonetheless hoping for a brighter future, one in which the next generation would carry on his legacy, recognize the central role that his educational reform policies would play in preserving Coptic identity, and assure a successful future for the Coptic community. Habib Girgis’ desire was that the Coptic Orthodox Seminary not only graduate priests, preachers, and teachers, but also reformers in every sense of the word.[10] In the life and decades-long service of Habib Girgis, we see that he was responding with singular care and concern to a pressing issue of his time — a desperate need for educated clergy, servants, and Church leaders who were able to ensure that the Coptic Orthodox faithful were fed true Orthodoxy in light of active western missionaries in Egypt. In the coming final entry in this series, we will reflect on the challenges we face today in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and examine, through applying the historical data we have discussed thus far, why the Coptic Orthodox Church is in equal if not even greater need for sound theological education today as she was at the time of St. Habib Girgis. — [1] Johann Michael Wansleben, Relazione dell Stato presente dell’Egitto, as translated in Anthony Alcock, Johann Michael Wansleben on the Coptic Church (2016), 7-8. [2] Pope Cyril V occupied the Throne of St. Mark from 1874 to 1927. He is the longest reigning patriarch in the history of the Coptic Church, having served as pope for 52 years, nine months and six days. [3] Habib Girgis, The Coptic Orthodox Theological College [4] Habib Girgis, “al-Madrasah al-Iklīrīkiyah: Māḍīhā wa-ḥāḍirhā wa-mustaqbalahā” [The Clerical School: Its Past, Present and Future], al-Karmah [The Vine] 9.9 (1923): 464 [5] Habib Girgis, “al-Madrasah al-Iklīrīkiyah,” al-Karmah 6.7 (1912): 307-8 [6] Habib Girgis, Handwritten letter from author to the Patriarchate’s Church Council, Patriarchal Archives, Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Cairo (21 February 1929): 4-6.2-4/33 [7] Ibid. [8] I believe this decision caused him to become paralyzed near the end of his life. [9] Habib Girgis, Practical Means Toward Coptic Reform, 82 [10] It is important to note that during this period, authors would at times use western writings as references. Even some of Habib Girgis’ works, especially those on the Sacraments, were influenced by Catholic writings. At times, Protestant Apologetics was used against Catholics and Catholic Apologetics against Protestants. While some efforts were made by certain individuals to translate selected patristic texts such as Yassa Abdelmassih, Murad Kamel, Yusuf Habib, and Fr. Markos Dawoud, it was not until the time of the bishop of education in 1962, that is, Bishop Shenouda (later Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory), and his writings and sermons, along with the publishing of the writings of Fr. Matthew the Poor and the work of the Center of Patristic Studies in Cairo, which started in 1979, that we begin to see a more widespread use of patristic texts. This begs the question: what were some of the main sources used during the first seven decades of the twentieth century, particularly the first half of the twentieth century? Fr. Markos Dawoud, for instance, spent most of his effort translating the works of F.B. Meyer and Matthew Henry from English into Arabic. This raises some serious questions about the formation of theological thinking in the Coptic Orthodox Church, particularly in the late nineteenth and early- to mid- twentieth centuries, which many see as a time of reform. These issues merit further study and extend beyond the scope of this introductory series. — His Grace Bishop Suriel presently serves as a Professor at the Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary in New Jersey, United States. We are honored to announce that Season Two of His Grace Bishop Suriel’s podcast, Coffee with Bishop Suriel, is also coming soon! Subscribe to Coffee with Bishop Suriel to receive the latest news. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.