Christ and conformity

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Personality, individuality is very important to me, and I imagine to many of us. Conformity and convention are not words I like, and, in as far as I'm capable of talking about virtue, they do not appear to me to be virtues in themselves.

However, I am wondering if someone can help me out on the issue of growing as a Christian and at the same time growing as a unique person. I assume, intellectually at least, that the one process actually enhances the other: God does not want robots, he wants us each individually, personally; but what about St Paul's "not I, but Christ in me"? What about the cutting of the self-will? What about the image of a Shepherd and His sheep? I do not want to become a sheep, not in the sense of losing my individuality, or bleeting out standard prayers instead of talking like a true person to the True Person. In know that God would never wish for me to stop being Byron, since all those who've taken the path before me and reached the destination did not become automata or nonentities either. But there is a fear there. Help, anyone?

In Christ
Byron

[Patrick Walsh]

Hello Byron

Metropolit Vitaly writes:

"But the candle has yet another profound meaning. The burning candle represents the entire life of the faithful, from birth to death. It stands for the inner flame of love for and devotion to God. A Christian should burn like a candle before God, and his whole being should gradually be consumed by this divine flame thus marking the end of his earthly life."

I am also reminded of the passage in Matthew where Christ asks Peter, "Who so you say I am?" and Peter replied, "You are the Son of God."

Christ did not ask Peter, "Who am I?" but, "Who do you say I am?" The question was deliberately constructed to encourage Peter to give an honest answer from his own heart. Christ did not demand that Peter search the wisdom of heaven and earth for an answer not within his own heart. Christ did not demand of Peter more than Peter could give.

Who do I say I am? I do not know. I am still, even after forty years, trying to understand who I am. The only thing that I have realized after forty years of journeying in the wilderness is that God knows who I am, and I need to listen to God who will reveal to me who I am.

Yes, we are individuals, not in our own right, but in God's image. Unless we put aside our preconceived notions of who we are, we will never discover whom God has made us to be.

Let the light of God burn away the grass and wax of your fallen self, and allow God to bring out the creation he has made in you.

Humbly,
Patrick

[Owen Jones]

This idea of the unique individual is a romantic conceit concocted in the 18th Century by Rousseau and others. Self analysis comes a little later but is part and parcel of the gnostic revolt against reality. It's impossible to graft that concept onto Orthodox Christianity.

What we have to do is reverse the process. Do not start with an analysis of who you are. Do what you are commanded to do, as best you can. That is who you are. It requires no analysis.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

The image of "Shepherd and His sheep", and the "not I, but Christ in me" and the like are, all, referring to relations.

It's like presenting the image of "my wife and her husband" and as like saying "Not I, but my wife in our relation". In all this instances "my self" is not absent. On the contrary "my self" is necessary not to become zeroed, or else I would not be in position to be engaged in the specific relation.

What makes the issue of “personal growth and our relation with Christ” difficult to “balance” is the prejudice that Christ is “superior” or “better” from us. The image of Shepherd is an image of relation:

(John 10:7-10) Jesus said therefore again to them, “Verily, verily, I say to you -- I am the door of the sheep; all, as many as came before me, are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them; I am the door, through me if any one may come in, he shall be saved, and he shall come in, and go out, and find pasture. The thief doth not come, except that he may steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly”.

In the above passage the sheep “come in and go out and find pasture” freely and He is the Shepard that serves them like a secure “door” that guards the freedom of sheep and assures them from “thieves and robbers”.

The Christian doctrine is the freedom of relation that is based in mutual faith. Christ has faith in us. He did what he did, and he still does what he does is based on His faith for us. His faith is not an abstract blind faith in “humanity” in general, but a specific faith for the specific person that each one of us is.
The “problem” (I call it “problem” because for some people it is faced as a great problem) is that the real “us”, which Christ faces and has faith in, is not realized by us as “ourselves”.
The situation is like going to a theatre where you meet your wife, with whom you are related with a loving relationship based on mutual experiential faith. BUT, she is on stage playing a self determined role. Your real life relation has no meaning from the staged role. No matter how developed the role can become after hard work, she can not relate with you unless she leaves the stage. The abandonment of the role playing is called by the role players as “conformity” and “convention”. Non role-player practices seem empty of (theatrical) virtues, when they are measured with the theatrical measures.

This was the situation Christ faced on Earth. The role players were asking from Him to assume a role and to enter into the play as a Divine “character”. BUT, real life has nothing to do with role playing. It is expressed from existential and experiential relations. No matter how developed and perfect and unique it is, a role has NO effect on the acting person, which is naked without the role. This existential nakedness is covered by Christ’s incarnation, life and resurrection, because He introduced in our lives His relation with His Father, a relation that is based in the mutual pleasure of the Father to be related with His Son in Spirit, and of the Son to be related with His Father in Spirit. Because the Trinity relation is uncreated, it is not a role playing situation. A role playing situation presumes that there was a time period that the acting person was not identified with the role, but in the Life of God, there was not ever a time that the Father was not the specific Father, that the Son was not the specific Son and that the Spirit was not the specific Spirit. And all Divine personhoods/hypostases are uncreated existential and experiential realities that are personalized in the specific Divine Persons. Church unites in Christ the uncreated and the created.

When Christ said: “If any one does come unto me, and does not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:26), He was referring to the theatrical play, and to the roles that we must abandon in order to assume the disciplehood. This is a not a question of becoming less or more of who we already are, but to stop “acting”.

In an analogy, a husband must stop “acting” as a husband-role in order to be a specific authentic husband of a specific wife. The relation is based on both of them, and yet at the same time is not a common experience. The specific husband realization is absolutely unaware of the specific wife realization. This lack of experiential knowledge of otherness is the foundation of all personal relations. The individuality is a privilege of persons in relation, but at the same time the relation is not defined by the specific “individuality” of the one part alone. The realization that individuality is incapable, by its own, to support the relation guides to rest on the otherness. Then the individuality is expressed in servicing the other related part. This is called self-denial.

Self denial is meaningless when it is performed out of a relation, but it gets the meaning of service when it is expressed within a relation.

Relation is the existential and experiential realization of otherness in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self.

May God bless us, all.

(Message edited by lpap on 11 August, 2005)

[nurse-aid]

we are become greek http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif philosophers with cross on our necks...to remind ourselves what we really have to be...

[Owen Jones]

"Relation is the existential and experiential realization of otherness in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self."

Huh?

[nurse-aid]

i've been thinking long ago...something like that:

O Almighty GOD! Creator of all living things and Father of all his children!
Convince me to humble myself in front of Your Powerful and Universal Existence…
Let me see myself as it is; powerless, selfish, proud, weak and small…

O LORD! Remind me and show me constantly that I’m only a servant and not a master, even of own my little life…
Cleanse me my LORD from illusion of my importance and the great purposes of my little deeds…
Give strength of obedience to YOU, without any desires and plans for my life…
A good servant always happy, because his will is will of his master…
This is a happiest union and unbreakable bond! Chain my soul with Your Will o LORD!
This is happiest slavery and safest relationship! I’m only a servant, my GOD, let me never forget!

O FATHER! Teach me simplest virtues of the young children;
Love ---from desire of it, fear--from love, obedience---from trust,
happiness—from simplicity, satisfaction—from little needs,
calmness—from own unimportance, careless—from having no plans for future,
thankfulness ---from admiration, balance in sleep in food—from not knowing of it’s importance…

Let me my LORD become little children again, help me to cleanse myself from dust of my adult life…
So I can be happy and careless, satisfied and obedient, trustful and calm,
and always praise Your all Holy Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Amen.

[Owen Jones]

Now, all of this is pretty irrelevant when responding to the question, "what about me? Who am I?" The answer lies in our common pathos.

In our tradition, we do not arrive at an analytical answer to that question. We obey His commandments. We suffer.

That is the answer to the question. The mystery of existence is never resolved, the question is never answered, only obeyed in love and fidelity. The focus on relationships is really a distraction from our true calling.

[Antonios]

For most of us, we will first see ourselves (that is, who we truly are) when we are standing before the judgement seat of Christ in the General Ressurrection. Blessed is the person (aka, the saint) who in this lifetime has a glimpse of who they are, something only given by the grace of God.

The way I see it, Christians are similar to bibles: There are many different shape bibles, some hard cover, some soft, some monotone, some colorful... here is where they are unique. But the message of the bible (or the heart of the Christian) is the same.

in humility and love,
Antonios

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

"Relation is the existential and experiential realization of otherness in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self."

Huh?

Saint Paul said:

(2 Corinthians 12:2-3)
"I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago, who was being caught away unto the third heaven-- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known.

And I have known such a man that he was caught away to the paradise, and heard unutterable sayings, that it is not possible for man to speak -- whether in the body, whether out of the body, I have not known, God hath known -- ".

Saint Paul is talking about himself, but he does not directly identify himself with the "man in Christ". All Church fathers explain that the "man in Christ" that was "being caught away unto the third heaven" was St Paul himself.

And his testimony is that the presence before God in the frame of loving personal participation in the life of Holy Trinity is "whether in the body, whether out of the body, I have not known, God hath known".

The presence before God is not a "placement", it is the awareness of Otherness in the absence of realization of self. Self is not vanished because its presence is testified by the other person, but it becomes “information" from within the relation. Self does not produces, neither consumes the relation; it is absent from the relation as a self awareness. Self is generated as a testified view from the related person.

"In your light we see light". God is the existential light that experientially "lights" the "selves" of the creatures that are related with him. He does not just illume them, but he actually testifies for their existence/view from within their relation.

The First Light is God and then His view of ourselves, within our relation with Him, becomes the light we see afterwards.

Living a life of self-awareness, out of relations, is a life of ontological darkness and non-existence.

Devil is a perfect creature that can not become more perfect than his current status, but because he excludes himself from relations, in the more absolute way, he eventually becomes everything. He "consumes" everything and he "produces" everything. The others are his and they are from him.

Trinity Persons do not produce everything neither consume everything. What Father is a person in relation with the Son, as His Father, the Son is not. What the Son is a person, in relation with his Father, as His Son, the Father is not. Same thing is also for the Spirit. What the Spirit is as a person, in relation with the Father through the Son, neither the Father nor the Son are. The Trinity Persons are distinct from each other in the most individual way of being Father, Son and Spirit respectively. At the same time this absolute individual way of being –unexperienced from the other persons- guarantees the most unified way of existence within the relation: as long as the Father remains Father, the Son remains Son and the Spirit remains Spirit, the Trinity Way of Being is ontologically manifested as ONE GOD. The existential identity of each Divine Person originates from the experiential identity within the ONE Holy Trinity relation.

Neither of the Three Persons can say: I am alone the “consumer” or the “producer” of the Universe and of Existence. At the same time, within the relation each Divine Person can say that “I and the other Person are ONE”. And the paradox is that there are Three Persons in ONE relation and that we are also invited, as adopted children of God, to participate in this ONE relation, not as guests but as ontological members.

This unity in ONE of many individuals gives the right to St Paul to say: “not I, but Christ IN me” and to advise his spiritual children: “become MY imitators”, because he is also in the ONE relation of Trinity way of being.

These doctrines from the Church seem confusing and “funny”, but we must realize that God IS human after the incarnation of Christ. Not that the human nature was made divine, but a human person, Christ, was related with the Father in Spirit bridging the “gap” between created and uncreated way of being.

(Ephesians 2:13-18)
“But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And he came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.”

God bless us, all.

[Theopesta]

I think the mature spiritual one who keep his own personality in between the other sheep not become imitator to the others to take the external appeareance to satisfy his self and concentrate on his self more and more but no internal satisficaton.

the true struggle make the single sheep know himself more, and go freely emptying his self in his true obediance to the shepherd.
one by one he find his own more he find his true God image inside himself and littel by littel transform to the true likeness of God.

but the sheep go astray to find the false freedom
he catches the phantom.

the imitator sheep he is remaining in the same point not move but the time not wait him the time move

{"Relation is the existential and experiential realization of otherness in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self." }
this sentence very strong but HOW the relation be?

[Marie-Duquette]

... "crucified with Christ, to rise with Christ!

Thank you for a "sane and normal reminder."

The Gospel tells it all! So why do I spend my time trying to understand that which can not be understood rationally? When faced with "Mystery" of God's relationship with me; and mine with Him -in the Trinity, looking upon the Rublev Icon of the Trinity, I am reminded of the relational aspect of God, and the great LOVE the God has for me, for each human person, by sending us the Lamb of God to be sacrificed upon the altar of the Cross, each day in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and within my mind-in-heart! Here I am Lord, come to do your will.

"Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole mind, your whole strength; and love your neighbor as yourself." Do this and you will live! for the rest, take up your cross and follow Me, the Lord Jesus, says.

"Let me be "attentive!" . . .

How did I crucify my Lord, today? Lord have mercy upon me a sinner!
"Most Holy Theotokos, save us!"

[Theopesta]

luk 17: 33
(AKJV) Whoever shall seek to save his life shall
lose it; and whoever shall lose his life shall preserve it."

jn 12: 25
(AKJV) "He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal."

Rev 3: 9- 12
"that I have loved you,
Because you have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation, which shall come on all the world, to try them that dwell on the earth
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which you have, that no man take your crown.
Him that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God: and I will write on him my new name."

2tim 4: 7,8:

"(AKJV) I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

From now on there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but to all them also that love his appearing."

php 1: 20, 21:
(AKJV) According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

<font color="0000ff"> If you know not, O you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed your kids beside the shepherds&#39; tents.
song of solomon 1: 8</font>

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thanks to everyone for their posts so far.

I&#39;m getting a general message that we, as Christians, shouldn&#39;t analyse or overanalyse the issue of who we are; it is of greater importance to simply follow the commandments. God, who alone knows our true identity, will do the rest.

Yet at the same time, it seems to me of paramount importance that we be authentic in our relations to others, and especially to God. In order to do that, honesty with ourselves is also necessary.

I guess my initial question was partially answered by Antonios, who likens Christians to different editions of the Bible: many different shapes, sizes, colours etc. &#40;both on the outside and on the inside&#41;; but ONE essential message, identical in all.

I give thanks unto God, Who knows us each personally, much more than we can ever know ourselves.

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

P.S. Owen, it may not bear direct relation to the initial question, but I&#39;d like to hear more of what you mean by the term &#34;gnostic&#34;.

[Owen Jones]

The classical understanding of man is that we serve a transcendent purpose. That defines what we are. A person was defined in terms of his virtues or character or what he represents. The idea of the uniqueness of each individual was never an issue until the Romantic movement in the 18th century, part of the general trend toward gnosticism. Modern gnosticism is based on the premise that either God did not create, or if he did he botched the job and if we had gotten there first we would have done a better job. But we have now evolved to the point that we can create whatever we want -- a new man, a new human nature, reform history, nature, politics, everything, to make a perfect world that God failed to make. It&#39;s impossible and unreal of course, which is both the result and the cause of a kind of mass psychosis.

[Marie-Duquette]

Byron,
Peace of Christ be with you!

As you initially stated in your querry in post #137 -- Christ wouldn&#39;t want you to be otherwise that &#34;Byron&#34; ... I believe that is true! As Christians, God know each of us by NAME! He know who we are right to the depths of our being, from our mother&#39;s womb, more than we will ever know ourselves.

If we look at the Gospels, Jesus calls his disciples by Name ... Peter, Philip, etc. He recognizes each for who he/she is.. . It is slowly that the &#34;revelation&#34; is made. Even Mary at the tomb. It is when she is recognized, she recognizes and knows Jesus, as the Risen Christ! This when he calles her name. The same with Peter, &#34;Peter, who do you say that I am?&#34; Isn&#39;t the NAME is the PERSON. So why is each of us given a NAME?

Acceptance of who each of us is in Christ, as we were baptized into Him. Each of us is who he/she is, and day by day getting to know ourselves in Christ, growing, developping, changing, being purified, illuminated, divinized.

HOW is this done? in the daily mystery of our lives in Christ, and as you, yourself say, &#34;by following the commandments, the instructions of Christ Jesus in the Gospels, and the guidance of the Church. Simply by truly living; of living in Truth!

It seems to me that all of this issue is contained in the simple phrase &#34;Come follow ME.&#34; and the response each gives to the Lord! So, let us each &#34;FOLLOW&#34; according to who we are, where we have been placed in God&#39;s Divine Providence, single, married, widowed, monastic, etc. The shepherd knows not only the flock, but each sheep,and ewe, and lamb. So, when one goes astray, he searches for it until it is found, healed and placed again in the flock. So, in a way Leandros is right. All is in relation to someone else!

What is asked of me, TODAY in the Light of Christ! and, hopefully, that with the Grace of the Holy Spirit working in us and through us, we may each attain to that &#34;maturity in Christ&#34; that we are called to live as expressed in the Beatitudes.

We have also the Mother of God and the Saints to look up to. By reading their lives we can see ourselves as in a mirror -- not slavishly mimicking their actions, but their Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ being accomplished unto its fullness ...

None of us is perfect, or perfectly holy! Only One is Holy! so as we look to Jesus Christ, the perfect image and likeness of the Father, as the Son of God made flesh. He is our Strength, encouragement and salvation. We are strengthened in prayer and in the sacraments, in the reading of Scriptures and the works of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church, through the lives of the Saints. Just for &#34;Today!&#34;

We also have one another in the Christian Community, in the Church, on this Forum, in our Families and work places. I am alone, yet not lone! The Desert-dwellers seemed so &#34;alone&#34; yet each needed to contend with his/her own inner-outer life in Christ. Each response to a call of life in Christ is personal! It is the little living &#34;me&#34; that needs to be purified, illumined, divinized; and sent forth!

May I add that the Festal Menaion gives us abundantly what is asked of us Christians, at each Season of the Cycle of our life!

This doesn&#39;t mean that all will be fine! Thankfully, the Cross will still be there, obstacles, temptations from the devil, and from the lusts and passions of our life. That is our daily struggles, taking up our cross each day and following Christ, in Faith, Hope, Love! doing what must be done, &#34;Today&#34;, trusting that the Grace of the Holy Spirit is working in and through us to the glory of God! Being in the world, and not of it.

there is Alpha and Omega, and all else in between! Come, Lord Jesus, Come into my Life today, that I may truly be who I am to the Glory of God, at each level of my existence in Christ.

&#34;O heavenly King, the comforter the Spirit of Truth, who are everywhere, Present, and fillest all things, come and abide in us, cleanse us from every impurity and save our souls, O Good One.&#34;

&#34;O Christ, Our God, who at every Season and every hour in heaven and on earth are worshipped and glorified, who are longsuffering, merciful and compassionate, who love the just, show mercy to the sinner and call all to salvation through the promise of blessings to come. Lord at this hour receive our supplications, direct our lives according to your commands, sanctify our souls, hallow our bodies, correct our thoughts, cleanse our minds, deliver us from all tribulation, evil and distress, surround us with your holy angels that guarded and guided by them, we may come to the unity of the Faith and knowledge of your unapproachable glory, for you are blessed unto ages of ages. Amen!&#34;

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner!
Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

with Love in Christ

[Patrick Walsh]

What it the name of the man born blind in John 9?

Patrick

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

the imitator sheep he is remaining in the same point not move but the time not wait him the time move

"Relation is the existential and experiential realization of otherness in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self."
this sentence very strong but HOW the relation be?

Dear Theopesta Dem,

First, I agree with your remark that the “imitator sheep he is remaining in the same point not move”. This is a very valuable proposition that needs a strong effort to uncover its insight. It is very difficult for someone to realize that he is not moving, while he is making so much imitation acts. It is like a person that plays in a theatrical play the role of a saint-martyr and then when he gets off stage he is not a saint-martyr anymore. Actually, the actor has never been a saint-martyr; he was acting as one though. But, at our age acting is taken as being. I think, this is the most tragic confusion of our times.

When Christ was asked "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:16-26;&version=9;), He replied “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God”. Eternal life is considered by many as a personal conquest. And it is believed that there are some “good masters” that know the “good” conquering technique, and Christ is considered as one of those masters. He personally rejected this characterization as He answered to the question, because He is not a teacher of techniques. In the same answer he named God as the only genuine “good”. He did not answer that He was not “good”, but He questioned the thought of the asking person: In what context do you call Me good for? Only God is good. Do you address Me in this spirit as you recognise the God in Me, or because you perceive goodness as a commodity you name me according to my merchandise?

Then Jesus provided the answer that he was asked for: “but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments”. This answer, as it is provided to the asking is bitterer than the previous critique question that questioned his intentions. The asking did not realize that he was out of the life which he was asking to enter and he went asking even for more: “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?” The asking person was honest in his words; he was keeping the commandments, as a technical method, but he never lived them as ways of being in relation with others. He just counted them as acts that were performed by him. He was an honest actor of good but he never realized that acting is not the same as living. In his honesty he deserved a proper answer, which was given to him by Christ: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me”. "But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions".

In all of His answers Christ had started with an “if”: “if you have the will to enter into life…”, “If you have the will to be perfect…” The two “if” introduce the destruction of the stage where the role-acting is taking place, imitating real life. To “enter into life” and to “be” means an absolute transition from “imitation” to “living”. The last answer, “go and sell that you have”, is the final stroke that destructs the superstructure of “theatre of life”. The actor can not act if he has no theatre of life to play his act and then the imitation can not be performed, because his “costumes”, his “stage-designing”, the “stage” itself are missing and he stands naked from all theatrical imitating accessories and he becomes a dismantled actor that is capable to present only his true -beyond stage- self.

There are three ways of being: the possessive, the joint ownership and the lack of property.

The ontological wealth consists from materialistic, moralistic, affective and intellectual properties. The possessive and the joint ownership ways of being guarantee the ability of the being to perform, to act according to the play of life in order to acquire a role, a personal role that will give identity to the actor. Without a role the actor is ontologically meaningless. In this context, even the keeping of the commandments can become an act of role playing. Even the most precious acts of self denial can become an act of role playing. And since an actor is imitating reality, acting is a farce of life and actually, as you Theopesta has said, “the imitator sheep he is remaining in the same point not move”.

St Paul has said to my co-patriots Corinthians that, as members of the Church we are blessed with gifts, but these gifts are not the body of Christ. These spiritual gifts are partly manifestations of the one Church Body, but they are not by themselves the specific Church Body itself, just like the parts of the human body are manifestation of one specific body but they are not the specific body itself, by themselves.

The ontological manifestation of human being is not its properties. The human being is not the possession of parts. Let us see how St Paul explains this analogy:

“For the body is not one member, but many.

If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.

If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

If they were all one member, where would the body be?

But now there are many members, but one body.

And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it”. (1 Corinthians 12:14-26)

With this superb example St Paul has presented that a specific human body is a relational SINGLE ontological reality between distinct members. The ontological reality of human body is the relation between body members as the existential and experiential realization of other members in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self-member. For example, the foot is experiencing the way of being of an eye, while the foot itself is absolutely absent in this experience and foot's existence has no role in the way of being of the eye - all this is done because there is the relation of the one body between the foot and the eye. The way of being of one member is experienced from all other members and yet they are all absolutely unmixed and distinct in both their way of existence and of their experiences. “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it” yet “the body is not one member, but many”. What constitutes the ontology of human body is not its wealth of members but the single relation among distinct entities that unites them in one ontological instance. The acting/performance of each member is meaningless when it is realized out of the relation with the other members.

Then St Paul continues:

“Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way:”. (1 Corinthians 12)

St Paul continues providing the analogy of human body relational ontology to the Body of Church. As the human body is the ontological presence of related distinct members likewise the Church is the ontological presence of related distinct members. Each member of the Church has its own distinct function, “first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues”.

But, each member of the Church is distinct from the other just as the human body members are distinct from each other: “All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?”.

If Church members were all alike, then just as in the case of human body, the body would have not been a relational ontological presence but a natural homogenous function: “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?” “If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

So, there is interdependence between the body members, but at the same time each member is totally unaware of the existential and experiential way of being of the other members. The eye for example is totally unaware of what is the existential and experiential way of being a foot, or a hand, or a nose. Yet, each member of the body is unable to exist alone without being in relation with the other members through the ontological relational union of the one body.

But God generated the Church just like He did with the human body: “But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired” … “Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues”.

Then, Apostle Paul says that as in the case of the human body members, which serve a higher cause other than their own individual existence, that is the relation with the other members of the body serving the presence of the body as a relational union of members, likewise the Church members are not circumscribed in their own individual existence but they are ought to “earnestly desire the greater gifts”.

And then St Paul shows the most excellent way, indeed:

“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing”. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

Just like in the case of human body, for which “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?“, likewise each member of the Church of Christ that is not in loving relation with the other members and it is just a perfect member for himself alone, acting as a perfect member but not being in relation with the other member, is nothing. A member with perfect functionality, when it is taken out of the relation with the other members, is meaningless. It is like a perfect eye that is taken out of the relation with the sence of smell. Such a member is actually a member taken out of the body. Such a member is a failure of perfection that it is self justified and servers no other cause than self existence.

St Apostle Paul goes on defining the proper relation with the other members of the Body of the Church as LOVE:

“Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

The relation among Church member is similar to the relation among human body members.

Then he explains the most important characteristic of Love:

“Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have fully known.

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love”. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

The service or each member of the body will eventually cease. Prophesy, spirituality and knowledge are serving the childish way of being members of the body of Church, just like the service of members of the body of a child. A child is using his members to speak, behave and think in a childish way. Nevertheless the relation among his immature body members is there presenting the ontological presence of the specific person, because the person’s body is defined by the relation of the members and not from the individual functionality of the each body member. The same relation, servicing afterwards the same members, will continue to present the same person, when the childish immature ways are replaced with the full dynamic of each body member’s functionality. The current natural imperfection of each member of the Church makes our realization to be imperfect, but as in the case of a child, the Body of the Church is defined by the relation among Church members and not by the perfection of each Church member. But the future restoration will provide to each Church member a clear realization, complete and personal, just like the realization that has already been offered (but has not been realized, from our inability – like the child that is offered the same reality that is being offered to adults, but the child has not the ability to realize it beyond the childish way of realizing). “…now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have fully known”.

We need faith and hope, because we are members of the Church like the immature members of the body of child that need faith and hope that they will be perfected. But the reality that is offered to the child is the same with the reality that is offered to the adult. What constitutes the ontological presence of the child and of the adult within reality is the relation of the imperfect and perfect body members respectively, not the subjective realization of reality from each body member which is growing from imperfection to perfection. The same principal is valid for the body of Christ. The Love, as the relation, between Church members is their ontological participation as the specific members of the Body of Church. The individual perfection of each body member is irrelevant.

What St Apostle Paul is teaching here is the third “way of being”, proposing the lack of any ontological property. This proposed way is the way of being in personal relation with the other, which is called LOVE by Christians. The future restoration is not going to change the ontological participation in the Body of Christ; it will just provide a complete, clean view of reality that God is offering to us even from present time. And the present possession of ontological wealth (material or immaterial), either personal, or common, has nothing to add to the offered reality by God.

It is assumed that the personal development is an asset of being member of the body of Christ, but on the contrary it is absolutely unnecessary. What is necessary is the personal, honest, loving relation with the other members of the Body of Church.

When we try to assume a role, to act according to the perfect moral, ethical, divine law we are not related with the others. We just apply to others the specific perfect service. But according to St Paul, if I am perfect in my behaviour with the others, but do not have love, I am nothing.

If we understand that the whole ontology of the universe is based on the principal of ontology of a body of members being in relation as the existential and experiential realization of otherness in the existential and experiential absence of realization of self and that we are also being made from the same ontological principal, then we will find that Love as a relation between members is the definition of ontological constitution of Being.

It is a principal of ontology that to be is to become a member of a body relating with its other members. But the “becoming” is not a physical, or natural transformation, because then this would have not been the presentation of “to be”, but the presentation of “to form”.

Once there was a time that we were not. And then there is a time that we “are”. We ontologically are because we were created from God, from nothing, and we become what we were not before our generation: we became related with the other members of ontological reality, after our generation, with which we were not related with, before our generation. The line that separates “to be” from “not to be” is the presence or the absence of relation with other members of a “body”. We can not be, if we are taken out of relation with members of a “body”.

One can say that we can exist alone, but that is like saying that an eye can exist alone. This is the false realization of self that the devil has. He is a perfect being functioning only for him and not related with absolutely anyone else. The devil is not a member of a “body” and it is strange to understand hell as a way of being shared by many. Hell is a way of being of absolute loneliness. Hell is like being an eye isolated and totally disconnected from a body, but functioning as an organ. Such an organ sees but there is no body to relate with to smell, to hear, to touch, to walk, to taste the view. It is like a blind view that can not realize that the view is not offered (by God) for viewing. The view is offered for the body. The view is offered to participate in the relation of the members of the body.

Now, returning to the original question: " but HOW the relation be?” the answer is just a word: LOVE.

“…you shall love your neighbour as yourself”. (Matthew 19:19)

The relation that constitutes the ontological human body is the same relation that should also constitute all bodies, even the Church. This relation originates from the words of God to Moses: “my name is WHO I AM.” This answer of God to Moses proclaims that God is ONE. Trinity Persons are related in Love. This relation is the model for the body of Church: "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me”. (John 17:22-23)From within the relation of Love, Church can also say my name is WHO I AM, in Christ.

If we realize that we are ONE with the other, in love, we will view the other inside us - not metaphorically but ontologically. Our existential and experiential self awareness will loose self, which will be replaced by the related other. And the other will testify our self as his loving one. Then we will both be members of ONE ontological body. All that is needed is to look at our human body to see an example of that.

May God bless us, all.

[Theopesta]

many thanks for you all to your enlightment views.

I had read a book to archimandrit safrony &#34;who is god&#34; he wrote about his first 3 or 4 years in the holy mount Athos that:

his spritual father not understood his personality, so his disciplinal dealing not suitable to what his personality need to grow and mature, he confused he feel he not walk
in one of Athos night he sat in his window inside his cell after midnight &#40;no light&#41; and asked from God that:
&#34;God make me not sentimentalize or being affected with any one and not affect in any one&#34;

I read this book from the arabic version from 10 years ago, may be I am mistaken

[Michael Howard Lake]

Dear brothers and sisters,

I have truly enjoyed reading these postings! It&#39;s amazing to see such depth and wit. I particularly enjoyed the things Mr. Owen Jones has written about modern Gnosticism. In fact, if I may, I would like to quote Mr. Jones&#39; statements on the psychosis of the post-Romantic solipsist, or what I often call the &#34;narcissistic nihilist.&#34; I have conflated two postings into one and edited the wording &#40;I can&#39;t help it! I&#39;m an English teacher!&#41;. Mr. Jones, tell me what you think of the following:

&#34;The idea of the unique individual is a romantic conceit concocted in the 18th Century by Rousseau and others. Self-analysis comes a little later but is part and parcel of the Gnostic revolt against reality. . . . The classical understanding of man is that we serve a transcendent purpose. That defines what we are. A person was defined in terms of his virtues or character or what he represents. The idea of the uniqueness of each individual was never an issue until the Romantic Movement in the 18th century, part of the general trend toward Gnosticism. Modern Gnosticism is based on the premise that either God did not create the world, or if He did, He botched the job, and if we had gotten there first, we would have done a better job. But we have now evolved to the point that we can create whatever we want -- a new man, a new human nature, reform history, nature, and politics, everything, just to make a perfect world that God failed to make. It&#39;s impossible and unreal, of course, which is both the result and the cause of a kind of mass psychosis.&#34;

Thank you all once again. I remain,

Your brother in Christ,

Michael

[Sunny]

I do not often respond to posts. I read them but don't think I could add anything relevant so I don't comment. In this case however it seems, as others have said, that Byron was asking a straightforward question. So many of the responses were analytical and spinning around the topic without making anything clear. Why is it that we don't speak simply plainly so all can understand?

Byron, I have found in my own life that as I continually yield my heart to the Lord on a moment by moment basis and choose to trust Him AND choose to love Him the dross and impurities rise to the top (so to speak) and I am purified more and more. I then have a greater peace and truly feel that I am in the process through this of becoming my truest self-the real me. When impurities (of wrong thinking for example) are removed I feel lighter and my being fills with hope and I feel more of the presence of God. Being in the presence of God is where we're meant to be, I think, and in His presence we can see ourselves as He sees us and wants us to be. (Remember He sees the ending as well as the beginning):>
This is a great joy!
Sunny

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Sunny,

Thank you for your recent posting. I also appreciate it very much when things are expressed plainly and simply. That isn't always easy in the field of theology, but the very complexity of the subject is also a good reason to keep it as plain as possible - without becoming too general or concrete or oversimplifying.

You write:


Being in the presence of God is where we're meant to be, I think, and in His presence we can see ourselves as He sees us and wants us to be. (Remember He sees the ending as well as the beginning)

That does seem to be the answer to my initial question. The more we become ourselves, the more we come to resemble Him in His qualities. But for clarity of reflection, the glass has to be kept clean.

The paradox of who we are, each in our unique way, and what this means in relation to our Creator, is perhaps also answered in the appreciation of our depth and our personal way of being in the world.

Once again, many thanks.

In Christ
Byron