"So the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, for they set at nought the offering of the Lord." (I Kings 2:17)

The First Book of Kings (chapters 2-4 - According to the Septuagint.  The First Book of Samuel in most English translations.) gives us a terrifying account of priestly laxity and of the fearful chastisement that befell those ministers of the Lord who served Him, but not rightly.

The aged high priest, Eli, had two sons, Ophni and Phinees, who were also priests. When the Israelites brought animals to sacrifice to the Lord, these sons of Eli were unwilling to wait until the animals had been offered, and setting at nought the commandments given by God to Moses, they took these animals by force for their own use, thus becoming victims of gluttony; and thereby - we might add - they also earned the condemnation of Saint John of the Ladder, who refers to gluttony as "this perdition of the sons of Eli" (Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 14:34).

The Holy Scriptures tell us that Eli did censure his sons - once. He told them, "If a man should at all sin against another, then shall they pray for him to the Lord; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?" But Eli's sons did not listen to him and, from the context of the Biblical account, we may surmise that Eli did not pursue the matter any further, as it was his duty to do. Worse, it seems that despite their persistence in wrong-doing, Eli preferred to stay on the good side of his sons rather than offend them.  But God warned Eli:

Wherefore hast thou looked upon my incense-offering and my meat-offering with a shameless eye, and hast honoured thy sons above me? . . .Behold, the days come when I will destroy thy seed and the seed of thy father's house . . .and I will raise up to myself a faithful priest, who shall do all that is in my heart and in my soul.

What, indeed, are the offerings of the Old Covenant - the burning incense and the flesh of dead animals - when compared to the Sacred Eucharist of the Christian Faith? Shadows and transient things, even as the priesthood of the Old Israel is when compared to that of the New Israel.

Only those who have served before the altar of God can fully comprehend the fear that overwhelms the man who beholds the dread Mysteries and touches them with his own hands. Before him are the very Body and very Blood of our Saviour, and who indeed is worthy to touch them, or even able to speak of these things?

Therefore, when one contemplates what finally happened to Eli's sons, and to Eli himself, for their carelessness in the matter of sacrifices which were but mere types and dim foreshadowings of the true and everlasting Sacrifice, one can only shudder with dismay at seeing the commandments of God today "set at nought" by Christian clergy who are supposed to observe and teach those very commandments. If the sin of Eli's sons "was very great before the Lord," what, then, can be said in regard to those who ignore, or even worse, disdain the Lord's commandments which have been given to us by the Apostles and their successors, the God-bearing Fathers?

Priests, and even bishops (who at their consecration solemnly vow before God and the people of God that they will uphold the holy canons), are so often heard disparaging the holy canons, sometimes - alas - in language that can hardly be printed, the Orthodox Christian is at a complete loss how to cope with this unbelievable turn of events. If a Congregationalist or Unitarian were to question our observance of the holy canons, we would not be taken aback. But when an Orthodox (?) clergyman knowingly mocks the holy canons, then the story of Eli's sons inevitably comes to mind.

A little over thirty years ago, a certain dedicated priest published a translation of a handbook for parish priests. The clergyman in question, a convert to the Orthodox Faith, included in his work a number of canons "for the benefit of the clergy." In his Foreword, the good father noted:

A few will take exception to the inclusion [of the canons], saying, they are out-moded, in abeyance, or again, circumvented. But in the parlance of the day, "Don't kid yourselves!" - they are inherent with us and always have been. In a final decision they must be reckoned with, inside and outside the Church. They may be stagnant to some, but rest assured they sparkle in Orthodox living. I would add this: in almost every library in the major cities of the United States may be found the Ante-Post Nicene Fathers which include the Councils and their Canons. When in doubt regarding the Eastern Church, refer to them; accept these writings as axiomatic of the Faith.

How different is this spirit from the spirit that so often prevails today, and which, obviously, prevailed in Eli's time.

As the Scriptures clearly tell us, Eli's sons were completely out of order.  But so was Eli.  Eli loved his sons and was evidently quite indulgent towards them.  He slapped their hands once - not too hard - and let it go at that. But Eli's love - notwithstanding its sincerity - was faulty. Its priorities were skewed. It was only a sentimental love, not a godly love. It was, in short, a man-pleasing love that ultimately destroyed both him and his sons.

Today we see many spiritual descendants of Eli and his sons among those who call themselves Orthodox Christians. What is to be done? Should one speak, or should one keep silence? Assuredly, we all have an abundance of personal faults, so really, who are we to speak? Shouldn't we mind our own business? How can we, who have a big beam in our eye, correct another, who has only a tiny mote in his eye?

Certainly, this is true if we are speaking about our personal failings. But personal failings are on a completely different level from our ecclesiastical obligations before God. In such cases, a true and sincere love demands that we speak out, and even rebuke if necessary, as the Holy Apostle tells us, "both in season and out of season," but always from a genuine concern for the welfare of those who wittingly or unwittingly are wandering away from that which is right and true. As we know from the Church Fathers, our personal sins are a -transgression- of God's law, but heresy is an - alteration - of God's law. The first is very different from the second. Hence, each must be dealt with differently, but always with love and concern for the erring.

Recently one periodical noted the following in an editorial:

We are called to a love which "suffereth long and is kind." Our love, however, is quick to cool, inasmuch as we are quick to judge another's faults, quick to take offense. . . .This applies to the Churches as well as individuals - for though a Church be mighty against error and earnest in its preservation of Holy Tradition, if it have not love, then it has become as "sounding brass" and is destined to go down in the dust.

The problem here is that the writer of the editorial has confused two distinct issues - the two issues that we have described above - that of personal failings and that of ecclesiastical error. Hence, the editor maintains that even a Church can be quick to judge another's faults, quick to take offense.

But in a case where one local Church censures another local Church, the issue is not one of personal faults. The serious issues that arise between Churches are not matters of personal transgressions, but rather matters of error, of wrong teaching, of heresy, - of alterations - of the law of God. It would indeed be quite absurd for us to assert, for example, that when Saint Cyril of Alexandria first heard of the heresy preached by Nestorius, the new Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Cyril was guilty of being "quick to judge Nestorius' faults, quick to take offense"! As we know from Church History, Saint Cyril pleaded with Nestorius again and again to come to his senses. When, however, he saw that the patriarch was unrepentant, the Saint was the one who was largely responsible for Nestorius' synodical condemnation only three-and-a-half years later (which is very "quick" even by today's standards).

Should we castigate the Church of Alexandria for not having a love which "suffers long and is kind," or should we rebuke Saint Cyril for being "quick to take offense" and "quick to judge" Nestorius' faults?

No, let us not confuse issues that have been crystal clear to believers of every generation, beginning from the time of the Prophets and continuing on through the Apostles and Fathers. Personal flaws are one thing, ecclesiastical error is another. Each has to be handled in the manner proper to it, with love for all concerned.

In this context, it would be helpful for us to recall the words that the French Orthodox clergy wrote in a recent letter:

In the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition, there is not love on one side and truth on the other; but love and truth are one selfsame reality, Christ, true God and true man: the greatest proof of love, said Saint Photius the Great, is to tell the truth! To distinguish between love and truth is to fall into the -humanistic- heresy denounced by Fr. Justin Popovich and by Vladika Andrei of Novo Diveyevo; it is to follow the path that has caused so many heresiarchs to fall.

Separating love from truth can only bring upon us the terrible wrath that befell the sons of Eli, and Eli himself, who had a very wrong kind of love, and consequently would not correct his sons when they needed it the most.

May God preserve us from this false "love" and from falsehood, and lead us unto that "one selfsame reality," Christ, Who is Love and Truth Himself. Amen.

HOLY TRANSFIGURATION MONASTERY

278 Warren Street

Brookline, MA 02445-5027