atla0000063818 guroian _ liturgy and the lost eschatological vision of christian ethics

7/27/2019 Atla0000063818 GUROIAN _ Liturgy and the Lost Eschatological Vision of Christian Ethics

1/13

Liturgy and the Lost Eschatological Vision of

Christian Ethics

Vigen Guroian

In the Slavonic version of the Byzantine Liturgy the beatitudes of Matthew's

Gospel comprise the third antiphon of the Lesser Entrance. The Entrance begins

with the doxology: "Blessed is the Kingdom of God the Father, the Son and theHoly Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages." "From the beginning,"

comments Alexander Schmemann, "the destination is announced: the journey is

to the Kingdom. This is where we are goingand not symbolically, but really. In

the language of the Bible, which is the language of the Church, to bless the

Kingdom is not simply to acclaim it. It is to declare it to be the goal, the end of all

of our desires and interests, of our whole life."1

This liturgical placement of the beatitudes in theLesser Entrance expresses the

Orthodox Church's conviction that moral living is integral to the process of

sanctification and theosis (or divinization) leading to eternal life. Growth in moral

goodness is set against an eschatological horizon that is no less vast and lasting

than divine life itself. The Trisagion hymn immediately follows the recitation of

the beatitudes: "O Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal One, have mercy upon

us," sealing the eschatological and soteriological meaning of the Entrance. The

beatitudes are not demythologized; nor are they allegorized. They are not set aside

as counsels of perfection for religious and monastics alone, and they are not

interpreted as impossible possibilities of ethical striving or high-minded religious

ideals. Instead, they retain the antinomical and eschatological character of thegospel narrative. They are ethically charged, yet reach beyond human morality to


2/13

228 The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics

It [the Entrance] is the very movement of the Church as passage from

the old into the new, from 'this world" into the "world to come" and, assuch, it is the essential movement of the liturgical "journey." In "this

world" there is no altar and the temple has been destroyed. For the only

altar is Christ Himself, His humanity which he has assumed and deified

and made the temple of God, the altar of His presence. And Christ

ascended into heaven. The altar thus is the sign that in Christ we have

been given access to heaven, that the Church is the "passage" to heaven,

the entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, and that only by "entering" by

ascending to heaven does the Church fulfill herself, become what she is.

And so the entrance at the Eucharist, this approach of the celebrant

and in him, of the whole Churchto the altar is not a symbol. It is the

crucial and decisive act in which the true dimensions of the sacrament

are revealed and established. It is not "grace" that comes down; it is the

Church that enters into "grace" and grace means the new being, the

Kingdom, the world to come.2

Schmemann laments the impoverishment of Christian liturgy and life and the

forgetftdness of many modern Christians that the church is an eschatologicaljourney to salvation. Many ordinary people think of the church as a place or a

building that is set apart from the profane world and in which clergy perform

sacred rites for the benefit of laity who live in a compromised world. In like

manner, they imagine that Christian morality is a set of rules or principles that

experts teach regular folk so that they can get along in the profane world and be

acceptable to the church.

When in this manner the scope of Christian morality is narrowed, the

beatitudes may seem impractical and unreasonable. People may confound

spiritual and moral formation in the church with moral action in the world aimed

at making justice. The two are related, certainlyjustice and Christian character.

They can be, should be, and often are commensurate. Nevertheless, they are not

the same. Nor does the realization of the kingdom of God depend upon the

perfection of temporal peace. Rather, the kingdom of God grows ever nearer with

each eucharistie liturgy, whatever the moral failings of the worshipers or the

conditions of the society at large. This is because in every liturgy the Word and

the Spirit are presentjudging, forgiving, and recreating. Geoffrey Wainwright

explains:


3/13

Liturgy and the Lost Eschatological Vision of Christian Ethics 229

The final decisive Christian distinction is not between the sacred and the profane,

the cult and the world, the just or unjust, or even between good and evil. Thedecisive distinction is between the old and the new. Christian ethics must be

imbued with this same eschatological vision.

In the Book of Revelation the glorified Christ exclaims: "Behold, I make all

things new"(Rev. (21:5 RKJV). Schmemann interprets:

Notice that Christ does not say "I create new things," but "all things

new." Such is the eschatological vision that should ma rk. . . eucharistie

celebration on each Lord's Day. Nowadays we treat the Day of the Lord

as the seventh day, the Sabbath. [Whereas for the young church] it was

the eighth day, the first day of the new creation, the day on which the

Church not only remembers the past but also remembers, indeed enters

into, the future, the last and great day.4

From this perspective, it may be seen that Christian liberty and virtue arise from

the deep, rich soil of the church's memory of the central salvific events of the

faith, soil sown with a vital vision of the eschaton wherein the ethical is

transfigured into the holiness of God.

This vision is the significant background of the serious issue I wish to raise.

For with the constriction of the Christian eschatological imagination comes also a

flattening of Christian ethics that makes Christian ethics look no different from

other religious and secular ethics. Whereas Schmemann is concerned with the

effects of this constriction of the eschatological vision in relation to liturgical

piety, my attention is to its effects on Christian ethics. For I believe that Christian

ethics loses its character and capacity to inspire human conduct for the good when

the eschatological imagination is impoverished. My analysis and Schmemann'sjoin, however, in the shared conviction that the decay of liturgical practice is a

principal source of the loss of an eschatological vision within the whole of

Christian life. I say this not withstanding my belief also that when Christian

liturgy becomes distorted or corruptive, Christian ethics may be in a position to

purify the liturgy. But the fundamental fact is that only the liturgy can give back to

ethics that eschatological vision which it has lost and which energizes Christian

life and inspires Christian mission. Thus, I am persuaded that above all, Christian

ethics today needs to recapture this eschatological vision given by liturgy,

especially by the Eucharist.


4/13

230 The Annualof the Society ofChristian Ethics

The Language of Moral Formation and

the Loss of Eschatology in Christian Ethics

The language of moral formation is pervasive these days in Christian ethics

and, no doubt, has contributed in its best moments to a better understanding of the

communal and ecclesial nature of Christian ethics. The ecclesial body is both the

classroom and the pedagogue ofChristian character. Nevertheless, I also believe

that this language is a barometer of the crisis of the eschatological imagination in

contemporary Christian ethics. The moral development theory of Lawrence

Kohlberg, which today influences so many in the churches, is an example. StanleyHauerwas argues wisely that translation of the language of sanctification into the

language of moral development is inherently reductive and necessarily entails a

loss of religious depth.5 If one insists on speaking ofmoral development in the

Christian faith one must still allow for conversion and continual growth in divine

similitude that is not only our doing but God's as well. Hauerwas explains:

To be holy or perfect suggests more radical transformation and

continued growth in the Christian life than can be captured by the idea

of development The story that forms Christian identity trains the self

to regard itselfunder the category ofsin, which means we must do more

than just develop. Christians are called to a new way of life that requires

nothing less than a transvaluation ofpast realityrepentance.

Moreover, because of the nature of the reality to which they [Christians]

have been converted, conversion is something never merely

accomplished but remains also always infrontofthem. . . . Growth in

the Christian life is not required only because we are morally deficient,but also because the God who has called us is infinitely rich. Therefore

conversion denotes the necessity of a turning of the self that is so

fundamental that the selfis placed on a path of growth for which there is

no end.6

If I understand Hauerwas rightly, he is saying that conversion embraces a

much more radical notion of humanfreedomthan moral development theory can

entertain. Also, paradoxically, Christian conversion entails dependence upon

powers other than the self, principally the sanctifying power ofthe Holy Spirit.

This combination explodes Kohlberg's naturalism and predestinaran" stage


5/13


propensity to slip into instrumentalist and immanentist descriptions of Christian

morality.

Thus, in some sectors of church life, talk of moral formation has thoroughlydislodged and replaced first order reflection on the sacramental and soteriological

character of Christian existence. The church is understood as a ''moral

community," as if the church's raison d'tre is to cultivate and produce moral

persons and a more just society. Likewise, the rhetoric of moral formation also

often leaves the impression that the religious truth of the church depends upon the

moral character of individual Christians. Schmemann warns against this error:

"The Church is not a natural community which is 'sanctified,'" through the

individual members, says Schmemann. Rather it is "the actualization in this^orld

of the 'world to come,' in this aeon - of the Kingdom."7 Because the Holy Spirit

is present when Christians come together in eucharistie worship, their personal

moral imperfections do not prevent the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church

from coming into existence. In the final analysis, Christian morality is the

outcome of the saving truth that the church embodies and enacts, not the other

way around.

The Sacramental Ground of Christian Ethics

Reaching back to more foundational matters, I want to argue that Christian ethics

follows from a participatory and sacramental truth revealed by the Incarnation,

acted and spoken by Jesus himself. The following verses from the fourteenth

chapter of the Gospel of John lead us toward this truth in communion. Jesus says

to his disciples:

I will not leave you desolate: I will come to you. . . [and] because I live,

you will Uve also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, andyou in me, and I in you. He who has my commandments and keeps

them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my

Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him (John 14:18-21

RSV).

St. Hilary of Poitiers explains, "Christ himself gives evidence of the nature of our

life in him through the sacrament of the flesh and blood imparted to us." And he

adds, "[This is what Christ means] when he says . . . 'Since I Uve, you also wiU

Uve; since I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.'8 The salvation

of men and women certainly supposes good moral behavior But Christian ethics


6/13


Byzantine theologian Nicholas Cabasilas thus pronounces: "The law of the Spirit

is with reason a law of friendship and consequently trains us in gratitude."9

At its center, Christian character is the willing conformation ofheart and mindto the image of God in Christ (Rom. 12:1-2). Persons are conformed to Christ

through the sacraments and by good deeds. The former are the workofthe Holy

Spirit and the latter are accompUshments of the human spirit assisted by grace. By

this synergy, divine love comes to life in persons, and persons come to everlasting

life in Christ. St. Hilary writes: "This is the cause of our life, that we have Christ

dwelling in our fleshly nature, in virtue ofhis flesh, and we shaU Uve through him

in the same way as he Uves through the Father. We Uve through him by nature,

according to the flesh, that is, having acquired the nature of his flesh"

10

Thosewho in faith participate in the Uturgy and who in love partake of the body and

blood of Christ are assimilated into his sacramental and eschatological body. This

is communion in holiness and life eternal. "For Christ has entered, not in a

sanctuary made with hands, . . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the

presence ofGod on our behalf' (Heb. 9: 24 RSV).

The telos of Christian ethics is mystical participation in the Resurrected and

Glorified Life to which Christ joins us through our obedience by the power of the

HolySpirit. The First Epistle ofPeter exhorts:

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope

fldlyupon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation ofJesus

Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former

lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who caUed you is holy, you also be

holy in your conduct, because it is written, "Be holy for I am holy." (1

Peter 1:13-16NKJV)

Within the life of the church, the quaUties and categories that we ascribe inordinary speech to moraUty are consummated in the "Amen" of worship. This

"Amen" perfects human freedom because it disposes the wiU totaUyin obedience

to God and participation by grace in the HolyTrinity. Christian ethics is not just

about justification, it is about sanctification into eternal life. Nicholas Cabasilas

summarizes this eschatological dimension ofcommunion and human holiness:

It is the very kingdom of God, as He Himself says, which comes in

power to those who have seen Him. . . . For this bread, this Body, for

which men in this life come to the table in order that they maybring ittherefrom, is that which will then appear to all eyes upon the clouds (cf.


7/13


More Than Moral Formation is Needed

Lots of ethics may look Christian and use Christian categories, but when the

Uturgical context is missing and the eschatological dimension is forgotten a

variety of transmutations occur. For example, since the EnUghtenment, advancing

processes of secularization have opened ways of entrance for secular ethics

Kantian, Lockean, Millsian, HegeUan, or Marxistinto the bloodstream of

Christian life. The deterioration of Christian worship and disciplines of prayer

deprives the church of tools of discernment and creativity to build ethics from

within the ecclesial body itself, and so there has been wholesale borrowing fromthese secular ethics.

In a variety of ecclesial locations, the fundamental antinomy of being "in the

world but not of the world" loses its edge while simultaneously the eschatological

horizon of Christian beef is overlaid with a transparency of one or another

secular ideology. Thus, Protestant fiindamentasts claim that the "traditional"

middle class family and its moral values unambiguously reflect or embody the

Bible's teaching. Mainline Uberai Protestants often quickly assume a correlation

between Uberalism's standards of Uberty and equaUty and the essence of bibcal

faith. Practicable goals of social ameoration and reform are treated as if they

constitute the raison d'tre and telos of Christian moraUty. Orthodox Christians,

who view themselves as entirely traditional but who are deeply imbued with

modern notions of nationahsm, conflate ethnic identity with the peoplehood of

God and supplant the eschatological hope for the reign of God with secular

dreams of nationhood. Meanwhile, Roman CathoUc Uberationists assert that

Marxist theory and analysis are compatible with the redemptive message of

Scripture. In this instance, Christian eschatology is flattened as it gets read into

economic and poUtical processes, while erroneous claims are made that thepeople of God come into being through revolutionary practices. In aU these cases,

holiness is no longer represented at the heart of human existence or as being the

horizon of human destiny

Modern claims for the priority of moral formation have lead to similar

confusions. It is assumed that aU that is needed to "make" good Christians is to

devise more and better models of reUgious education. The free gift of Christ's

own perfect life received in the Eucharist through the action of the Holy Spirit is

not beUeved. Mere Christianity devolves into mere moraUty that faUs short of true

repentance and conversion. As I have already suggested, God caUs Christians

through moraUty and ethics beyond moraUty and ethics He caUs them to


8/13


it alone does not make us free; a greater formation, a conversion, must also

happen. Becoming holy makes us totaUy free as we leave behind the wounded

body of ethics. "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,there isfreedom(2 Cor. 3:17 RSV).

Christian Ethics Belongs to the Body of Christ

An ethic that claims to be Christian but asserts rational autonomy from the

sacramental body of Christ cannot heal human nature because in this assertion it

ignores the ontological hold of sin that is overcome by the Incarnation alone. Thus

for example, Kantian ethics is exemplary of modernist and post-modernistendeavors to account for Christian ethics apart from faith and the deep

soteriological and sacramental truth of the Incarnation. In The Destiny of Man,

Nicholas Berdyaev warns, "law means precisely that God has withdrawn from

man. Hence [its] impotence to change human nature." Berdyaev may put the

matter too severely, but the main point cannot be gainsaid. Kantianism proposes

that we act in such a manner that our action could be a universal law quite apart

from beUef in the incarnation of the Word. This, says Berdyaev, is the opposite of

the ethics of the gospel. The real universal law is "that every moral action should

be unique and individual, i.e., that it should have in view a concrete Uving personand not the abstract good. Such is the ethics of love. [And] love can only be

directed upon a person, a Uving being, and not upon the abstract good."12

Berdyaev's personalism is immensely preferable to Kant's objectivism and

universalism, but it is not sufficient. The 'Veal universal law" is agapeic love

embodied in Jesus Christ and in aU those who henceforth partake of and are in

communion with his sinless and glorified flesh, which he has taken with him to

the Father in heaven. Agape is both sign ofthe cure of our sinful human nature

and personal participation in the communion of saints. This, undoubtedly, is whySt. John Chrysostom exclaims in a sermon: "Charity is a sacrament. So shut your

doors, so that no one can see the objects that you could not put on show without

giving offence. For our sacraments are above aU God's charity and love."13

Berdyaev's existentiahsm lacks this sacramental and ecclesial vision. The

kingdom of God is not solely eschatological; it is also sacramental and bodily,

growing in holiness into eternity. Nevertheless, Berdyaev helps us to remember

that what makes Christian ethics singular or distinctly Christian is not the

temporal peace or justice it may or may not effect. Other ethics are capable of

doing the same. Nor is it the power to arbitrate good and evil in the life of society

that distinguishes Christian ethics. Again, other ethics have that capacity. What


9/13


formation is most tellingly exposed. "The injunctions of the Gospel [and I take it

this has in view the beatitudes] are utterly unrealizable and impossible as

[ordinary] rules of action,"15 says Berdyaev. For these injunctions are alsoprecepts of holiness, the fullness of which is embodied in Christ. Other ethics may

be fulfiUed injustice, Uberation, or harmony, but Christian ethics isfiilfiUedonly

when human goodness is transmuted into the holiness of God. Where we speak of

justice or harmony as the goals of ethics we presuppose sin. However, as Paul

Evdokimov observes, "At the center of the immense drama of 'the Lamb that was

slain before the foundation of the world' (Rev. 13:8; 1 Peter 1:19) we find the

interaction not of grace and sin, but grace and holiness." "If anything in this world

is worth saving," he continues, "it is not primarily man 'the sinner,' but theholiness of God, his holiness in the human being - which moves the question

away from merely the human" or the ethical. Evdokimov concludes: "The human

being makes his or her way, not toward reconciation [alone], but towards

deUverance, to the healing of the wound inflicted upon his likeness to God."16

The Beatitudes, Eschatology, and the Fullness of Christian Ethics

At the start, I introduced a brief discussion of the beatitudes as they appear inthe Byzantine Liturgy. I want to close by rejoining that subject. In Basic Christian

Ethics, a classic of mid-century North American Protestant ethics, Paul Ramsey

engages the question much ave at the time as to whether the beatitudes are or are

not relevant to Christian ethics. He demonstrates that the answers range from

whoUy affirmative to completely negative. But Ramsey also detects an irony that

joins aU of these positions. AU concede the eschatological character of the

beatitudes, but hardly one seriously insists that Christian ethics is just as

thoroughly eschatological. Most of the positions resort to a strategy of lifting the

ethical teaching of Jesus "out of the context of his eschatology" in order to

salvage them j&r Christian ethics. Ramsey identifies two fundamentaUy opposite

ways of doing Christian ethics that rely upon this strategy. One insists

uncompromisingly that "the strenuous teachings of Jesus cover the whole ground

of action [in the here and now] necessary to restrain or eliminate evil [in this

world]"17 Tolystoyan pacifism is an example. However, this does not reflect the

true mind of Jesus because the beatitudes are embedded in an eschatology and

even an apocalypticism that do not envision defeating evil with ethics. The other

way of construing Christian ethics modifies and translates Jesus' radical teachingsinto precepts and warrants that in this interim age empower civil authorities to act


10/13


The Sermon on the Mount is "an eschatological stimulus intended to

make men weU acquainted with the pure wl of God." We may scarcely

be able to perform it in regard to a single (friend or enemy) neighbor. It

was never intended to be performed as a new law for the adjudication of

neighbor-claims in a settled society. Nevertheless, "we are able to be

transformed by it."18

Ramsey's approach foUows the lines of the more conservative strains of the

reigning Protestant neo-orthodoxy of mid-twentieth century. He concludes that the

beatitudes are eschatological, and that Jesus' ethic is eschatological, but for uswho are removed from the apocalyptic environment of the New Testament,

Christian ethics is deontological.

In neo-orthodox Protestant thought there was a conspicuous neglect of the

church's interpretation and mediation of Scripture through Uturgy. And while

Ramsey in later years moved to correct this blind spot in contemporary Christian

ethics,19 at this early stage in his writing, he is no exception to the rule. In Basic

Christian Ethics, he insists that Christian ethics is transformative and that the

beatitudes may spur on such transformation. But he does not show persuasively

by what manner or means this transformation is accomplished or by what

Christian practices (other than the principle of neighbor love) this transformation

may be gauged.

The Orthodox tradition employs the language of theosis (or divinization):

however, theosis is not conceived apart from the sacraments, especiaUy the

Eucharist. The Jesus of the gospels does not voice the beatitudes merely to lift our

ethical sights. Rather, by his life, death and resurrection, he impresses upon us that

they are the task and inheritance of those who faithfuUy foUow him. And by his

presence in the symbols of the bread and wine he also confers them as gracesupon those who partake of the meal. In this sacramental and Uturgical context, the

beatitudes are ethicaUy compelling not because they are commands or precepts

that may be proven metaphysicaUy or verified epistemologicaUy but because they

are eschatological, because they are attributes of the person in whom the reign of

God is present and being inaugurated. Nor are they inspirational ideals that

transform. Instead, they are what Christians participate in and become when they

bind themselves to Christ by baptism and gather as one body in eucharistie

assembly.

The beatitudes are present in one other significant Uturgical locationthe

Byzantine rite of burial. This, indeed, may be the strongest Uturgical testimony to


11/13


Paul says: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in sins

But in fact Christ has been raised, the first fruits of those who have died" (1

Cor. 15:17,20 RSV).It is not possible for a Christian to think of the resurrection apart from

"remembering" his or her mortaUty. Jesus announced the beatitudes when he was

aUve but his death secured their blessings. Therefore, he said to the repentant thief

hanging next to him: "Today you wiU be with me in Paradise"(Luke 23:43 RSV).

Christian ethics is death and resurrection ethics because Jesus Christ has

overcome death on the cross and was raised in his glorified body from the grave.

The fundamental principle of Christian ethics is to "act so as to conquer death

and affirm everywhere, in everything and in relation to aU, eternal and immortal

life,"20 says Berdyaev. That is why the beatitudes are found in the Byzantine rite

of burial where they continue to carry aU oftheir bibcaUy grounded ethical and

eschatological import. St. John of Damascus's anthem precedes the beatitudes in

the rite. This great seventh and eighth century Greek patristic author recalls the

beginning, when God "created man after thine own image and likeness," and the

faU, whereby Adam sinned and was condemned to die a corruptible death, and

finishes with this lament:

I weep and I wail when I think upon death, and behold our beauty,fashioned after the image of God, lying in the tomb disfigured,

dishonored, bereft of form. O marvel! What is this mystery which doth

befaU us? Why have we been given over unto corruption, and why have

we been wedded unto death? Of a truth, as it is written, by the command

of God, who giveth the departed rest.21

The response to this lament immediately foUows with recitation of the beatitudes:

"Remember us, O Lord, when thou comesi into thy kingdom. Blessed are thepoor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn, for

they shaU be comforted. Blessed are the meek "22

No Christian, no human being, is capable of securing these blessings for

himself or herself. Nor can even one single human person escape the judgment

that Adam brings into this world and is finished in the world to come. Yet the

ethics that moderns, even many Christians, cherish ignores this judgment and

consequently does not embrace the mercy that repentance calls out from the heart

of God. Christian ethics severed from Christian Uturgy becomes estranged also

from this faith and from the service of salvation and healing for which, only, itexists. Rejoining Christian ethics to turgy and eschatology in a single vision of


12/13

23 8 The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics

NOTES

Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World (Crestwood, Y.: St.

Vladimir's SeminaryPress, 1973), 29. Emphasis in the original.2Schmemann, Life of the World, 31. Emphases in the original.

3Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (New York, Oxford

University Press, 1981), 151.4

Alexander Schmemann, Liturgy andTradition, ed. Thomas Fisher (Crestwood,

. Y: St. Vladimir's SeminaryPress, 1990), 97.5

Stanley Hauerwas, A Community ofCharacter(Notre Dame, IN.: University of

Notre Dame Press, 1981), 1306

Hauerwas, Community ofCharacter, 131. Emphasis mine.7

Schmemann, Liturgy andTradition, 16-17.8

Henry Bettenson, The Later Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University

Press, 1972), 57. The text is an excerpt fromHilary's de trinitate 8.15.9

Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ (Crestwood, . Y.: St. Vladimir's

SeminaryPress, 1974), 17310

Bettenson, Later Christian Fathers, 58.11

Cabasilas, Life in Christ, 146.12

Nicholas Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man (New York: Harper and Row,

Publishers, 1960), 10613I have used Emilianos Timiadis's translation ofthis passage as it appears in his

"Restoration and Liberation in and by the Community," GreekOrthodox Theological

Review 19, no.2 (Autumn 1974), 54. The passage is drawn from Chrysostom's

Homily71 on the Gospel ofSt. Matthew.14

Berdyaev, Destiny ofMan, 125.15


Paul Evdokimov, Woman and the Salvation of the World(Crestwood, N. Y.:

St. Vladimir's SeminaryPress, 1994), 191-92.17

Paul Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1950), 38. Emphases mine.18Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics, 43. Quoted is Martin Dibelius, The Sermon

on the Mount(Scribner's, 1940), 135.19See, for example, Paul Ramsey, "Liturgy and Ethics," Journal of Religious

Ethics, 1, no. 2 (Fall 1979): 150; and my discussion in Incarnate Love: Essays in

Orthodox Ethics(Notre Dame, Ind.: University ofNotre Dame Press, 1987), 52-54.20


Isabel Florence Hapgood, ed. and trans., Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-

Catholic Apostolic Church (Englewood, N. J.: Antiochian Orthodox Christian

Archdiocese, 1975), 38621

Hapgood, ed. and trans., Service Book, 386.


13/13

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

atla0000063818 guroian _ liturgy and the lost eschatological vision of christian ethics

Documents