[IRMartin]

These videos made me think: what does it mean, in today's world, for us, to witness to Jesus Christ? After all, that is the meaning of "martyr": witness.

YouTube - Dr. Alan Keyes Arrested at Notre Dame during prayer demontration on campus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhJEkU66Z7I

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

[optormtix]

These videos made me think: what does it mean, in today's world, for us, to witness to Jesus Christ? After all, that is the meaning of "martyr": witness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc2W705UBM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhJEkU66Z7I

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

Oh no. Not Alan Keyes...

[jeaccatty]

These videos made me think: what does it mean, in today's world, for us, to witness to Jesus Christ? After all, that is the meaning of "martyr": witness.

There is no martyrdom for Christ here - only the willful breaking of the law which make one subject to arrest in order to make a secular social point. No one here is suffering for Christ, no one here is being required to deny Christ, no one here is acting in love towards his neighbor. This is not Christian martyrdom, this is self willed secular civil disobedience. Just because the political cause is in line with the Gospel does not make civil disobedience automatically Christian martyrdom.

Fr David Moser

[TyncTyncSah]

what does it mean, in today's world, for us, to witness to Jesus Christ? Today, as in the last 2,000 years, it means that the Orthodox Divine Liturgy should be celebrated. Everything the world needs is in it.

[WomanBreast40356]

Just so that things aren't too one-sided...

Looking at some of the links on the page, Alan Keyes seems a bit bonkers to me. But at least he is not apathetic and is standing up for something.

There is no martyrdom for Christ here - only the willful breaking of the law which make one subject to arrest in order to make a secular social point. No one here is suffering for Christ, no one here is being required to deny Christ, no one here is acting in love towards his neighbor. This is not Christian martyrdom, this is self willed secular civil disobedience. Just because the political cause is in line with the Gospel does not make civil disobedience automatically Christian martyrdom.

Fr David Moser

I cannot see into this mans heart and I don't know his real motives. However, surely it could be considered an expression of love for his neighbour - in this case the unborn child. Also, what is secular about affirming life and God's creation?

Today, as in the last 2,000 years, it means that the Orthodox Divine Liturgy should be celebrated. Everything the world needs is in it.

Everything that the world needs is in it? Sure, I can go along with that. Is it a witness? I am not so sure. How non-Christians are going to wake up in the morning at think to head down to their nearest Orthodox Church? The Apostles didn't stay in the upper room they went out and witnessed to the world.

Maybe I should answer the original question. I'm not sure what we see in the video is the most effective witness to Christ, but at least it is an effort to do so. I think that we need to witness in two ways deeds and words. Christians need to become known for their charity and love, they need to get out into the community and serve those in need (remember the sheep and the goats). Secondly, we need to preach the gospel in terms people can relate to and understand. Currently the public debate is being dictated by people like Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. We need to disabuse people of the notion the science explains everything and that religion causes all the worlds problems. The arguments are so intellectually weak, surely we just need to communicate more effectively?

[TyncTyncSah]

Everything that the world needs is in it? Sure, I can go along with that. Is it a witness? I am not so sure . . . Yes, we are to love 'in deed and in truth' (1 John 3:18) but it is in the liturgy that this love is fully expressed. The liturgy is the consummate witness of the Church. The Church is a eucharistic community which serves the world by witnessing in the liturgy that Christ is the saviour of all mankind. The liturgy manifests the Kingdom of God on earth in time: 'Blessed is the kingdom . . .' as it begins. It is in the liturgy that we witness that 'the Word was made flesh'. The Church is a centre of sanity in an insane world. The witness of the Church is to declare that it offers the cure for the world's insanity. That cure is dispensed in the liturgy. Everything flows from the liturgy.

The Apostles didn't stay in the upper room they went out and witnessed to the world. After Pentecost. After there had appeared to them 'cloven tongues as of fire' which 'sat upon each of them'. After they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

The arguments are so intellectually weak, surely we just need to communicate more effectively? There is a danger then of secularism. The Church does not have ideas to be expressed intellectually; it has life which is demonstrated above all in the liturgy. The Church is a hospital, not a university.

Christians need to become known for their charity and love, they need to get out into the community and serve those in need This is a very western, Protestant notion. It can tend to secularism and an anthropocentric approach rather than a God-centred one. Yes, we are to do what God enables us to do for those in material need, but what is the essential need which exists in our societies? It is the need for a cure for the sickness of the soul. All evils and sin result from this sickness. The cure is only to be found in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church for there alone is true life. Only if our lives are centred on the liturgy will other things follow. Otherwise, we attend only to symptoms and not the cause. Are those in the Orthodox Church good at this? No. But we will not improve by adopting a secularist attitude.

[IRMartin]

I particularly think that this is beyond western or eastern notions. Jesus Christ said very clearly that we should love our neighbours like ourselves.

And, if I knew someone was going to kill my baby, I would not stay in Liturgy. Also, if I were the baby in the womb, I would want the adults out there to come save me.

I can fully understand why we must not leve Christ to be political. But I also think that I should not deny Christ just to avoid being political.

And I am being totally honest here, I cannot even faintly imagine how not to support Keyes in this particular issue despite any other political view. His act was political alright, but with the aim of exposing the contradiction that even Christian institutions put themselves in the situation of, for the sake of being "apolitical", supporting anti-Christian doctrines through the people who support them.

I don't remember which saint, but I remember well the story of the saint who refused to receive the emperor because he had killed some hundreds of people. After that, the Emperor repented and the saint received him. I fail to see how supporting the killing of babies would be different.

In Christ!
Fabio L. Leite

[bZEUWO4F]

I don't remember which saint, but I remember well the story of the saint who refused to receive the emperor because he had killed some hundreds of people. After that, the Emperor repented and the saint received him. I fail to see how supporting the killing of babies would be different.

The saint was Ambrosius of Milano, and the Emperor was St Theodosius the Great.

[TyncTyncSah]

I don't remember which saint, but I remember well the story of the saint who refused to receive the emperor because he had killed some hundreds of people. After that, the Emperor repented and the saint received him. St Ambrose of Milan and Emperor Theodosius.

[delnisfernan]

These people aren't being arrested because they are Christians but for secular, legal reasons, namely, trespassing on private property. If an atheist pro-abortion group had held a similar protest, they would meet the same result. They were probably given citations (like speeding tickets) and then let go. An hour or so of processing time in jail and then a little fine. This isn't to say that their actions don't demonstrate a certain willingness to suffer on behalf of others, but I don't think it's right to compare them to martyrs or even ascetics based on this action. Speaking of Alan Keyes specifically, he subscribes to a secular ideology of American "conservatism" (for which faith is just one of several components) and is acting on behalf of this ideology as much as any personal beliefs.

The difference between a democracy and an imperial style government is that in the former, there usually aren't so many opportunities for martyrdom. Refusing audience with an Emperor could carry serious personal risk. Refusing audience with the president would just earn one a big "whatever."

[WomanBreast40356]

Yes, we are to love 'in deed and in truth' (1 John 3:18) but it is in the liturgy that this love is fully expressed. The liturgy is the consummate witness of the Church. The Church is a eucharistic community which serves the world by witnessing in the liturgy that Christ is the saviour of all mankind. The liturgy manifests the Kingdom of God on earth in time: 'Blessed is the kingdom . . .' as it begins. It is in the liturgy that we witness that 'the Word was made flesh'. The Church is a centre of sanity in an insane world. The witness of the Church is to declare that it offers the cure for the world's insanity. That cure is dispensed in the liturgy. Everything flows from the liturgy.

If one defines witness to proclaim Christ behind closed doors, in a language that non-Christians cannot comprehend, to other Orthodox then yes it is. However, I understand witness to mean presenting Christ to all so that they can see for themselves.

After Pentecost. After there had appeared to them 'cloven tongues as of fire' which 'sat upon each of them'. After they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

I don't see what your point is here. Yes, they waited until they received the Holy Spirit, but they still went out. They didn't wait for 3000 people to come knocking on the door.

There is a danger then of secularism. The Church does not have ideas to be expressed intellectually; it has life which is demonstrated above all in the liturgy. The Church is a hospital, not a university.

I'm not advocating that people can be won over purely by intellectual arguments or that faith is an intellectual exercise. Rather that we should combat the poisonous ideas spreading through popular culture that are keeping people's 'ears' firmly closed.

Salvation is about the whole man, in the same way our witness should be at every level.

This is a very western, Protestant notion. It can tend to secularism and an anthropocentric approach rather than a God-centred one. Yes, we are to do what God enables us to do for those in material need, but what is the essential need which exists in our societies? It is the need for a cure for the sickness of the soul. All evils and sin result from this sickness. The cure is only to be found in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church for there alone is true life. Only if our lives are centred on the liturgy will other things follow. Otherwise, we attend only to symptoms and not the cause. Are those in the Orthodox Church good at this? No. But we will not improve by adopting a secularist attitude.

Western, Protestant, secular, and anthropocentric? Let's see...

Western? I would have thought "Western" would mean salvation was purely a spiritual thing which does not involve the physical.

Protestant? We'll I guess there have been a lot of Protestant Orthodox Saints, how about these guys:

Saint Zoticus, Cherisher of the Poor and Servant of Lepers (4th c)
St Sampson the Hospitable of Constantinople (530)
St Placilla the Empress (385 or 386)

Secular? What is more secular than idea that I just look after myself and I don't need to help anyone else?

Anthropocentric? We are made in the image of God. We are all "icons". If we do not help people then it is Christ that goes hungry and naked (Matthew 25:31-46).

Yes, the Church is the hospital, but somebody needs to take the sick from outside to the emergency room.

During the liturgy those present pray for "the sick, the suffering, for those in captivity".

If we pray this, we must be prepared to be the answer to that prayer (James 2:16).

[WomanBreast40356]

Refusing audience with an Emperor could carry serious personal risk. Refusing audience with the president would just earn one a big "whatever."

I think this sums up the question in the original post. In our present circumstances, how can we witness to Christ? How do we get from "whatever" to "what must I do to be saved?"

[TyncTyncSah]

If one defines witness to proclaim Christ behind closed doors, in a language that non-Christians cannot comprehend, to other Orthodox then yes it is. However, I understand witness to mean presenting Christ to all so that they can see for themselves. This entirely misses the point, which is that closed church doors (they are not generally locked during services) and liturgical language do not constrain the operation of the grace and power of the Orthodox liturgy in the world.

I don't see what your point is here. No, I see that.

I'm also sorry that you do not understand the rest of what I said.

[TyncTyncSah]

St Seraphim of Sarov said that the devils possess such indomitable might against man and everything earthly that the least of them can turn the world upside down with its claw. They are frustrated in this by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fills all things. He is particularly present in the divine liturgy. If somehow the Orthodox liturgy were not to be served - God forbid! - the world would not survive. We can feel oppressed by the workings of evil, yet, though God permits the operation of our free will, we cannot know how He restrains evil. Let us not underestimate the action of the grace of the liturgy, which is real but mysterious, in the upholding of the world.

[immoceefe]

Gee, you guys have gotten yourselves into an intellectual straightjacket here. Asserting one thing as good does not negate other things that are good. Just because A is true does not mean that B is false.

Personally I dread God's judgment on us as we enjoy our marvelous liturgies while the world is starving for the truth and being led by the blind. We enjoy the liturgy while sending our children to schools that teach them how to be good nihilists. We enjoy the liturgy while we expect the Church treasurer to send off a little check every month to the department of missions in the office of the Archdiocese. We enjoy the liturgy while the government takes care of the poor out of our tax monies....I guess you get my point. The answer to our problems is not to go to Church more often, although that in and of itself is a good thing. But that seems to be the only thing that priests know to say -- see you in Church. How about, see you in the slums. See you in the hospitals. See you in the schools. See you in your place of business. (I'll take a pass on see you on tv!). Don't get me wrong. I have a marvelous priest, and only God can be all things to all people. But when we ask him how we can be witnesses to Orthodoxy, and he says, don't worry about that, the parish sends a contribution to the Archdiocesan department of missions, my head wants to explode. And then they wonder about the falling away of Greek families from the Church, and they wonder about the shortage of priests. God will punish us by letting us wither on the vine.

[WomanBreast40356]

Gee, you guys have gotten yourselves into an intellectual straightjacket here. Asserting one thing as good does not negate other things that are good. Just because A is true does not mean that B is false.

I would not deny that the liturgy is good or that it is a source of grace, or even that it enables us to witness to Christ more effectively. Rather, I don't feel it is sufficient by itself, nor does it really provide an adequate answer to the original question which is, as I understand, about practical action.

I quoted James precisely to emphasise the need for both "faith" and "works". In my experience, across denominations, it is the combination of earnest prayer and earnest action born out of love and a desire to see the gospel flourish, that sees new people enter the church.

[IRMartin]

I will share an experience I had. One of the parishes I used to go during my travels sits opposite to a huge gym, one of those palaces of "health" and physical beauty.

Well, it was about Christmas time, and it is usual that institutions, and specially the religious ones, engage in some sort of campaign. I talked to the person in charge about making one and the idea was received with coldness to say the least. I was surprised then to see, on Christmas week, that the so-called temple of materialism and vanity had gathered a pile of food so large that it went almost to the roof of their building and were preparing baskets to distribute to the poor. Meanwhile, the orthodox christians had done nothing and were excited about the next office in a Liturgical language not even them could understand.

Looking at that pile of food out there and the absolute lack of care in the church, I understood who was truly suffering of vanity, even if not of a bodily kind. Just like our own body, the Liturgy was given us by God to our salvation. But even the liturgy can be target of sinful vanity sometimes.

You see, I used to be a Kardecist before converting. Kardecism is a branch of Spiritism that was created by Allan Kardec and despite having faded away in its original country, France, it grew and developed in Brazil, specially among the middle classes. It advocates a number of anti-Christian theories: reicarnation, a parallel semi-material world that is the true spiritual world, that Jesus Christ is not God but a spirit just like us who achieved perfection after many reicarnations in his original planet wherever it may be and was thus assigned to be the builder and protector of this planet, that the Holy Spirit is but the host of highly developed spirits who aid Jesus in helping us to "evolve spiritualy" and so on.

Well, despite all these crazy theories, they have a *huge* charity work network. In the Kardecist center I used to go, they had an "advanced post" in one of the poorest and least known slums of Rio with an extremily beautiful work to help them not only have food, but to reintegrate society. They had school-support groups, dentists, doctors, psychologists, prepared social workers to deal with the many dramas that one finds in slums and that go far beyond just lack of food, they had a group of "samaritans" who, every Saturday would spend the day preparing soups and then go on caravan to distribute to the homeless.

The most influential person of this faith was Chico Xavier, who was a medium and spirits would write through his hands entire novels. He had over 400 books authored by spirits. Well, this man lived on voluntary poverty despite the huge success in sales he was. He had a minor public job as typewriter all his life, preached self-denial as the way to "spiritual evolution", chatisty, continuous prayer and devotion to the "spirit of Light Jesus" and devotion to those in need, soothing suffering. If Brazilian culture has ever of its own come close to traditional asceticism, it was in this man. When alive he was hugely respected by all classes in society and only the most pious pastors and priests would dare say something against him, only to gain the antipathy of the public.

And, even though I can understand how the use of this model to support wrong theology - if theology it is at al - can be a kind of trap, I do not understand why those who hold the right faith are so stubbornly resistant (at least here), to the idea that Jesus Christ did not come so that immigrant could keep in touch with their homelands, nor to simply give us a good burgeois life and a social network. I know *some * parishes have some kind of institutional charity work in giving money to some charity institutions, but, is it really so wrong to think that witness *should* be in public and society too? Taking hope to those in despair, food for the hungry, support for the fallen? Is it really the best thing to do, for example, about young girls in slums who are coopted by culture to initiate a sexual life around 11, many are pregnant by 13, the best thing is that I go to church and pray that doesn't happen, while at the same time, the policy of my leftist government is to tell these girls that what's wrong is that they don't demand their partners to use condoms? Should I receive the president of this government in my parish, when in Rio's carnival he was personaly throwing condoms to the public in a samba festival, thus incitating them to promiscuity? A man who, in the burial of the Pope, declared he did not have to confess before communion because he is sinless?

I completely agree that the Church should not be a political party. But when culture, or politics become anti-Church, it is the same idea of the "just war" against "thou shall not kill". To protect our churches, our families and our cultures from an invading enemy, we must wage war. And win. And, by the way, going to Liturgy as most as possible even during the war.

Fabio L. Leite

[JessiPollo]

Dear friends,

Christ is risen! I have only just got to this thread, which I have read with interest. The core question was asked in the first post:

What does it mean, in today's world, for us, to witness to Jesus Christ? After all, that is the meaning of "martyr": witness.

It is interesting to me, that I have come to this thread today: the day of the holy prophet Jeremiah, who certainly struggled with this question from his youth up. And he struggled with bearing a difficult witness amongst extraordinary conflict in the world: the collapse of the Hebrew nation, the destruction of the temple and holy city, the beginnings of exile.

On reading the posts above, I find that I am rather in agreement with Seraphim. It is easy for conversations to slip into intellectual dichotomies, often where I suspect people are more in agreement than the 'intellectual straightjacket' (to steal Owen's term) of the conversation promotes.

There can be no full martyrdom, no utmost witness, apart from the divine services. Without communion in Christ, that communion cannot be proclaimed. One cannot bear complete witness to that in which one does not have a part, which one does not know. Yet witness is born in the whole priestly transformation of the world, which involves also its enlightenment - and of this there is a necessary part in 'going out', in taking the transfiguring message of the Liturgy out, so that it can draw people into itself.

How this is accomplished in the world is not by some 'standardised formula': every person must do a, b, and c. Christianity's witness is borne into the world by the Body of Christ, the Church, in which there are many members with differing functions. Some will play their necessary role in the evangelical work of this Body by serving at the holy Table; some by running hospitals or schools; some by seeking monastic enclosure and withdrawal; some by taking in orphans. Trying to find 'a formula' which is 'the' Christian mode of witness, is fundamentally un-Christian. It goes against the very confession of the Church as a body many members, living as the true Body of the risen Lord.

We ought to resist the urge to pull apart the body; to say to the foot, 'you must be like the eye', etc.

INXC, Fr Dcn Matthew

[9mm_fan]

It seems, at least to this bear of admittedly little brain, rather obvious that the Divine Liturgy is absolutly CENTRAL to Orthodoxy, or rather, it is the Eucharist, which is the purpose of the Divine Liturgy. Everything, in a sense certainly revolves around it and flows from it. But it is not, in and of itself, everything needful. I infer this conclusion from the Divine Liturgy itself, or at least from the Liturgical calendar, which choses, during Great and Holy Lent, to celebrate the life of a person who lived many decades without attending Divine Liturgy. But the Eucharist certainly "frames" the story of St. Mary of Egypt. It is her inability to enter the Church to attend a Divine Liturgy that causes her repentance, and it is a final Eucharist before she dies that shows God's great mercy in response to her life.

It is the Eucharist that "gives life" to the Christian, but it is the Christian that who takes that life out of the Church and into the world, through our actions. We have "put on" Christ and indeed become Christ (in a representative way) to those around us. Unbelievers see us and our actions. It is our witness that defines us to the world, be it badly or favorably. If unbelievers see a Christian behaving badly they say "Christ must not be much of an example if that is how Christians behave". We can excuse ourselves in many ways but that does not change the "witness" in the eyes of others. Standing in a Church makes you a Christian about as much as standing in a garage makes you an automobile. It is possible to go to Church, attend the Liturgy and NOT be a good Christian, a faithful follower of Christ, so, it seems reasonable to believe that there is more to it than simply attending Divine Liturgy. The Eucharist is the central thing, but that is not the same as saying it is "everything", at least to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[TyncTyncSah]

The Christian faith is all about love. God is love existing in Trinitarian love of which human love is to be a reflection. Christian witness is about the expression of that love. This love must be for all because we are not isolated individuals (or, to the extent that we are, this is a result of the fallen world) but are of us are organically and ontologically united.

Christ came to us out of love for our salvation; He would have all men to be saved. If we are to witness for Christ, we must be like Him, and so our first and highest love for our neighbour is for his salvation. We must love everyone, including enemies, also the departed. This is what is done in the liturgy. To pray for all men’s salvation is to be Christ-like because that what He did for us. It is not about ethics or morality but about acting in accord with our true nature which is in the image of God, the God of Trinitarian love. It is not about material generosity always but it often means showing forbearance – being gentle, humble, and generous-minded in words and attitude with anyone who offends us. At same time, we have to try not to give offence to others. (St Maximos the Confessor writes about all this). How can we do this without being united with Christ in the Eucharist? ‘Prayer’ – and the liturgy is prayer par excellence – ‘comprises the complete fulfilment of the commandments’ (St Mark the Ascetic). We are not equipped for the work of love if we have not prepared ourselves by attending the liturgy and by other prayer. Only by the ascetic of life in the Church will we have the right inner intention which must inform our outward actions, as St Mark the Ascetic puts it. Works must be done with faith – that is what makes Christian witness different from being merely a ‘good citizen’. At the same time the grace of the liturgy goes out into the world.

As Fr Dcn Mathew says, we all have different gifts and God presents us with different opportunities for witness. Simply being a Christian is a form of witness. We cannot anguish about the dreadful state in which many people in the world live. But we must help those whom God places right before us: it may be something simple. Christ mentions a cup of cold water. But prayer is also witness if what Holy Fathers such as St Mark say is anything to go by. Do we so lack confidence in prayer that we secretly think it’ll change nothing? St Silouan spent a lifetime in prayer for the people of the world – was he wasting his time?

Ought monks to be out and about in the community distributing soup and sandwiches instead of praying? We must beware of using the Church as an institution which is judged by its ‘usefulness’ in society. That is the western, anthropocentric view I meant earlier. It’s what the various denominations in England and other western countries have done – become a sanctified social service. People have deserted these churches in droves, not because they provide insufficient social care but because in abandoning true faith in Christ and His Church, they have created a feeling of despair that there is nowhere to turn for satisfying spiritual needs. They are no longer hospitals for souls. No one has suggested that would be the result of members of the Church doing good. But my point in stressing the liturgical and the spiritual is to indicate that if we get active social care (which is but one form of witness) out of balance, there is the danger of going down the road of secularism. People are attracted to the Orthodox Church precisely by reason of its witnessing that there is hope for salvation in it, a hope which has been dashed by the western denominations.

In many western countries, the sort of good deeds that have been suggested – helping the poor, the needy, the sick – are not so easy to do, and the Orthodox Church in a country such as England doesn’t have the resources to engage in any social programmes, certainly not on the scale that the Church does in Russia, Greece and Cyprus. In our daily lives, our witness may necessarily be limited to the sort of forbearance and humility St Maximos writes of, plus some giving to charity.