Asceticism and marriage

[Justin]

Does anyone know of resources--whether on the net or (preferrably) in book form--from an Orthodox perspective that discusses asceticism within marriage or even a form of "secular monasticism" (for lack of a better term)? Thanks for any help anyone can provide.. . .

[Stephen Keeler]

There is a group within the Roman Catholic Church called Opus Dei, made up of clerics and laypeople (don't think they have any monasteries). A segment of the OD laypeople I believe have committed themselves to never marrying. Whether this takes the form of formal vows, I don't know, but they do not become monastics.

[John Wehling]

Justin,

As I recall, Paul Evdokimov’s “Ages of the Spiritual Life” has a chapter or more on this theme. He draws inspiration from St Tikhon of Zadonsk among others.

Also, David and Mary Ford have a book titled "Marriage as a Path to Holiness" which features lives of married saints as well as an introduction to the subject.

Finally, I think it is important to remember that there are not two different "counsels" or paths to holiness, one monastic and the other married. We have the same path and the same commandments, the same passions and the same virtues. St John Chrysostom, St Symeon the New Theologian, and numerous other fathers emphasize this point.

Hope this helps,
John

[Owen Jones]

But can we really get serious on the subject for a minute, John? Fact is today that Christianity is no different than middle class morality. For Christianity to offer a distinct choice to people, it must restore the ideal virtues of virginity and voluntary poverty as the highest ideals. This, it seems to me, is unquestionable. For Christ to be embodied in the world, the Church must extol these virtues and encourage everyone to at least consider, while they are young, to commit to this path. Anything short of that and we have sold out to the world.

Only a fool or an idiot would say that Christ condemns people who are not exactly like him. But what are we if we do not wish to be exactly like Him? We are living a lie. Where is the preaching and teaching that extols His virtues and encourages our young people to be just like Him? Our preachers are afraid because they know that mom's and dad's who pay his salary would have him fired if he gave such a sermon. Bishops would be screamed at and rich people would stop giving to the Church altogether.

I am married with three teenage children. I do not believe I am less than others in God's eyes or better than other's in God's eyes because of that. But I do not try to universalize from my own personal experience into some theological absolute. The truth is that the Church has the power of Christ in it, when and only when it adopts His virtues, not as a theory, not in the abstract, not as a theological debating society. But in practice.

As a married man with Children, I can speak out in favor of monastic vocations and support them materially without in anyway denigrating the married life and children. It is not an either or distinction. It has to do with higher and lower paths toward salvation.

By the same token, I do not believe that people who are not baptized in the ORthodoxy faith are beyond salvation. But surely protestantism is a lower path!

I had an Orthodox priest define it once in what I thought were Biblically graphic terms. It's like the difference between driving from my home town of Aiken, SC to Atlanta. A VW bug will get me there, but a Rolls Royce is better.

Monasticism represents the Rolls Royce of Christianity, where all of the highest qualities of Christ's life can be made manifest. And we, just like the spouse, can be sanctified by their holiness. Just as Orthodoxy can sanctify the world of unbelief.

Is this so hard to understand?

[John Wehling]

>> But can we really get serious on the subject for a minute, John?<<

Absolutely.

>>Monasticism represents the Rolls Royce of Christianity, where all of the highest qualities of Christ's life can be made manifest. And we, just like the spouse, can be sanctified by their holiness. Just as Orthodoxy can sanctify the world of unbelief.

Is this so hard to understand? <<

Not hard at all to understand, I don’t think. I was simply responding to Justin’s request for info on the asceticism of married life, not making some sort of judgment on monasticism nor refusing to make a distinction between the two states.

We often hear, in the Church in America today, that what we really need are more monastics and monasteries, and undoubtedly this is true, as are your words regarding our need to open the door to the monastic life for our children. But for those of us who are not monastics, there is still a need to live a Christian life. The charge that you lay at the Church’s feet—that she is no different than middle class America—probably has at least as much to do with the fact that married and single lay Christians do not live the Christian life as they are called to do as it does with the lack of monastics in our country. If we took the counsels of the Fathers concerning wealth and poverty, prayer and fasting, Bible reading and worship seriously, perhaps America would notice Orthodoxy. We would certainly be an odd looking bunch of people if we did. Peculiar, even.

I live 7 miles from a monastery, my spiritual father is a monk, and I worship at a monastic Church week in and week out (often day in and day out). I have gone through different phases of envying him his time for prayer, vigils, etc. The reality is, I can envy him but I cannot imitate him. If I kept vigil through the night, attended matins and liturgy from 5- 8:30 every day, and got only a few hours sleep a night, I could not function as a husband and father. So, I do what I can (sometimes!).

Is his way “better”? For him it is. And undoubtedly more Christians should embrace monasticism. But for those of us who, for one reason or another, cannot, we must live the married life as best we can.

Obvious, I know.

John

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

alas, I have failed to make my point. I give up.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen stated, "For Christianity to offer a distinct choice to people, it must restore the ideal virtues of virginity and voluntary poverty as the highest ideals".

The state of ecclesiastical (and or liturgical) piety must be a sore spot for you Owen, for truly all John did was offer a resource for the aceticism of married life. But let's speak of standards for a moment, shall we.

The standard for the Jewish nation was the "Law of Moses", which itself followed on the heels of the Abrahamic covenant. If for any reason this standard wasn't followed, it was separation from God, and or His people. Jesus himself said that He came "..to fulfill the law of Moses". Reading between the lines; (as we are so wont to do, often to our detrement when something is just what it proports to be), how did Jesus fulfill the Law? SIMPLE! When the disciples/Apostles brought food to their hungry Master, He replied, "...My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me". That is the only standard there is to union with God, with Jesus and with the Church!

You are a family man, as I am myself, as was the Apostles Peter and James, and as Matthew stated and I implied God is, has, and can be glorified through both the approach of marriage and monasticism.

Therefore I again state EMPATHATICALLY; it will take Christians living both approaches, doing "the will of the Father who is in heaven", to make the type of statement our world so desperately needs. The one thing Jesus told the disciples that they must do was remain in union with him, as He was with the Father, which He did by doing "nothing of my own will, but whatever the Father shows Me".

Virginity and voluntary poverty are foreign to the way that much of the modern world lives, but again, Orthodoxy canonizes saints in recognition of the fact that they lived and died, doing the will of the Father.

Piety is a sore spot for me (as I said it might be for you Owen). The temptations of the demonic world present themselves in any form, exalting the weaknesses of the flesh, subverting obedience to God, caring little if I am a tonsure monk or a tithing church goer.

tus
M.

[Owen Jones]

To say that God blesses marriage is a truism.

Somehow we've got to get over the notion that because the highest standard of virginity and voluntary poverty is presented, that means we must rush to defend the people who can't or won't live by that standard. (in theory, anyone and everyone can, but most choose not to because they are either led astray or feel unworthy, or are ignorant of our tradition, or have never been given the opportunity).

It seems to me that when the subject of voluntary poverty and virginity is raised as a higher path, it logically obscures the point if we simply rush to defend married people, which reflects a basic insecurity or lack of faith that we have in "modern times" in Christ's example and teachings.

btw, I don't think piety is a sore spot for me, other than my recognition that I utterly lack it. I'm merely trying to point out the lack of spiritual logic of a Church that appears to be fearful to raise the standard.

As I've said before, the post-Nicean Church makes little or no sense without the standard set by monastics. Monasticism after Nicea came to be known as the perfected life -- a standard that we can all draw from without feeling defensive because we are not monastics.

The parish community makes little or no sense apart from the spiritual link to monasticism.

Let's use a military analogy. The monastery is to the parish as an elite corps of invasion forces is to the regular divisions. Monastics fight the forward battle against the demons on our behalf. Just as the Church as a whole fights that battle on behalf of the unbelievers. Not everyone is destined to be a monastic, just as not everyone is destined to be a Christian. They suffer on our behalf -- voluntarily -- as a rational sacrifice to God. We do not condemn unbelievers. We are in no position to judge. It is not a question of judging them inferior. That would amount to a terrible sin of pride. Nor should we presume to negatively judge married Christians because they are not monastics. It just makes no sense logically to do that. It would be sophistry. But you don't eliminate the standard in order not to sound judgmental. That's the essence of modern liberalism -- which is a perversion of Christian compassion.

Now, everyone suffers. The monastic shows those of us who are barely average in our Christian commitment how to suffer gracefully. How to turn suffering into a blessing. Without visible monastics (not pious historical hagiography but real people that we can see up close), we lose the spiritual knowledge of suffering and the value of suffering. So when we suffer torment we feel depressed and lost, which is surely the worst heresy of modernity.

Unless and until we have the courage to preach and teach that voluntary poverty and virginity represent a higher path to salvation, until we have the courage to do that, I say the Church is lost. It is an empty shell of its former self.

And if you look at the decline of Christian civilization, it correlates very closely with the demolition of the contemplative life and the monastic virtues.

All of our moralizing about the problems of materialism and hedonism, etc. in the "modern" world is nothing but a vain empty gesture, without the living example of monastics who, by their example, undermine the very premise of "modern" life. That premise is that we can live apart from God and become masters of our own destiny. This ideology has infected the Church, especially in America, and no amount of personal piety will change that unless and until there is a flowering of the monastic spirit. Even then, we are not talking about some kind of spiritual utopianism. Life goes on.

[Justin]

Thank you, friends, for your help (and conversation, hehe http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif ). I am very thankful to participate at a forum like this where there is some sharing of info going on. (as opposed to each person trying to outdebate everyone else)

God be with you

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen,

I enjoyed and appreciated your latest post (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=71&post=1339#POST1339) to this thread. The nature of this conversation being rather expansive and the medium certainly difficult, sometimes several 'attempts' can be required before one can get a sentiment across clearly. I think you were successful in your last post, from which I especially appreciated the following:


The monastic shows those of us who are barely average in our Christian commitment how to suffer gracefully. How to turn suffering into a blessing. Without visible monastics (not pious historical hagiography but real people that we can see up close), we lose the spiritual knowledge of suffering and the value of suffering. So when we suffer torment we feel depressed and lost, which is surely the worst heresy of modernity.

Unless and until we have the courage to preach and teach that voluntary poverty and virginity represent a higher path to salvation, until we have the courage to do that, I say the Church is lost. It is an empty shell of its former self.

And if you look at the decline of Christian civilization, it correlates very closely with the demolition of the contemplative life and the monastic virtues. I have made the point (or rather, offered a reminder) in some recent posts, that the Church has always blessed both the married and the monastic 'ways' as holy and profitable in the sight of God. In this sense, there is a certain type of 'equality' between them, inasmuch as both are 'good'.

But, as you pointed out, the Church has never taught the modern social doctrine of 'all goods as equal goods', nor has it ever subscribed to the black-and-white conception of good as an either/or precept. It is not the case with the Church, as it is becoming in too much of the educational system, that an 'A' is passing and every other grade is simply a variation of failure.

For the Church to proclaim monasticism as the 'higher way' is not to devalue the 'lower ways', but rather to give a focal point and example to all ways of approach to God of the self-sacrificial, obedient, martyric virtues that are demanded of every human life and lifestyle. Acknowledging monasticism as the 'higher way' gives grounding and support to every other way of life that Christians may lead: it is the concrete and real actualisation of the virtues necessary for holy human living -- virtues that require sacrifices that many are unwilling to make. But the real presence of monasticism shows that these sacrifices can be made; they are not the fictional idealism of a fairy-tale Christianity.

To proclaim monasticism as the 'higher way' is to recognise and admit of the genuine possibility of following, literally, the exhortations of Christ for human living. And the Church has never suggested, never once decreed, that the whole of the human population is meant to take up the monastic yoke; but it has tirelessly confessed that the monastic vocation encapsulates all those elements of human living after which each human person is to strive, no matter what path he or she may follow. Monsticism has long been seen as the standard-bearer for Christian living. Not everyone is called to bear the standard, but all are called to live by the Truth it represents.

This posting contains largely my own opinion, which most of you will know I prefer in general to keep in silence in deference to patristic thought on matters of belief. But I might just continue long enough to say that, with regard to modernity's tendency to 'lower the standard' of monasticism in a (usually nobly-minded and pious) attempt to reinforce the value and holiness of the married life, I fear that not only monasticism, but even married life itself it greatly injured. When we devalue the standard, when we cover up the perfect icon of virtue because it is too great for us to bear, we do not in fact glorify the other holy ways of life. Instead we remove from them the very light by which they are able to maintain, enhance and perfect their holiness. Reletavism, in its worst sense, must ensue.

Monasticism shines the light which illumines holy marriage. This does not mean that all married couples are to be celibate (for this is not what the sacrament of marriage is about); but it does mean that the virtues which underlie the monastic vocation are the selfsame virtues which must underlie marriage -- though they are 'modified' in some sense to fit the married life (but alas, marriage itself was a 'modification' of the original state of Adam!). Monasticism is the 'higher way' precisely because we glean from monasticism the teachings on virtuous and holy living which inspire and direct the other blessed lifestyles of Christianity.

In the end, practical experience is a much better teacher than many words. Any married person who has been in the presence, even if for only a short time, of one who is really and truly a monastic (whether monk or nun), will know first-hand of the mysterious 'help' that the witness of monasticism can be to his or her marriage. Far from seeing in the monastic a 'shaming' or degrading of the individual's married state, he finds in the follower of the 'higher way' a deep, personal revelation of all the things which can make his marriage holy. It is of no surprise to me whatsoever that so many holy Orthodox marriages are built between couples who spend time each year in monastic retreat --and never once consider 'abandoning' the married life for the monastic! These couples find, no doubt, that the light of monasticism gives a great brightness to their own marriage that they rarely find in our confused world.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

This has been such an edifying thread. Thank you all. After reading these post and considering the writings of St Gregory of Sinai on delusion I wonder if anyone could recommend any monastaries where traditional monks might be available for advise or direction or just retreat. Anywhere in either the northeast or central states would be helpful. Thank you, Rick

[Richard Domina]

Just another thought. While it is of tremendous value to study and emulate those monastics who have followed their path, It is even more important to cultivate our life in Christ where we are in our own situation.(I think you already agree with this). I do want to take it one step farther and say that if one has to be a monk or nun to experience the fullness of God's love than Jesus is not who He said He is. I believe that the power and the point of Eucharist is He is here for all of us all of the time.(If we partake.) I get stuck when I compare my life with "holy" people and then try to superimpose it on my situation. In fact He is filling me with This Holy Moment right now but I am missing it because I'm pontificating to you. God bless. Rick

[Justin]

Richard,

I held off hoping someone else would answer. The most traditional of the (admittedly very few) monasteries I've been too would be the Saint Gregory Palamas Monastery (http://www.bright.net/~palamas/sgpmwb/index.html) in Ohio. I must admit that I was only there for a couple hours (visiting with a monk from Saint Theodore House), but from what I saw/experienced it would be a wonderful (more traditional) experience.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Richard,

My apologies for not writing something sooner in response to your request for information on a monastery to which you might make a pilgrimage.

Perhaps you could give a general area within which you are able to travel for such a journey? (e.g. how far from 'home' is close enough to be practical?)

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

It has taken me a while to respond to Richard Domina's post from 6th August; but, better late than never, I suppose....

Richard wrote:


While it is of tremendous value to study and emulate those monastics who have followed their path, It is even more important to cultivate our life in Christ where we are in our own situation.(I think you already agree with this). I do want to take it one step farther and say that if one has to be a monk or nun to experience the fullness of God's love than Jesus is not who He said He is. I believe that the power and the point of Eucharist is He is here for all of us all of the time.(If we partake.) I get stuck when I compare my life with "holy" people and then try to superimpose it on my situation.

(Emphasis added by M. Steenberg)

With the assertion of the first bit of your quotation which I've placed in boldface font, above, I am certain that everyone here (and hopefully everywhere) agrees. It is, indeed, a point that has been brought up in various posts earlier on in this same thread (e.g. those by Owen, James); and it is in fact the truth behind the starting of this thread itself. Some qualifications on this have been offered by Owen and myself; but these are mere relational clarifications and certainly don't argue against the truth of the matter.

With regard to the second bit of your quotation which I've highlighted, above, I would only suggest that we must be slightly cautious here. Certainly the attempt at superimposing a foreign situation on one's self can, indeed, be detrimental. But there is a difference (and a vitally important difference) between attempting to superimpose a situation of external circumstance, and trying to emulate the inner life of a person in any circumstance. While I may not in any way be in an external situation similar to that of the great St Symeon Stylites, and thus I will likely never take on myself the external manifestation of asceticism that was so fully his; nonetheless I am in exactly the same, critical interior condition of fallenness that he saw as his own lot, and thus his conviction to action must be my own. I am not called to emulate his external life, but we are all called to emulate the internal struggle taking place within him.

The Christian life is a life of emulation: we seek to emulate Christ; we seek to emulate the Mother of God; we seek to emulate the Saints. But we must always remember the difference between emulation, which is our duty, and copying, which is the call of very few and, for most of us, can be very detrimental - as you pointed out.

NXC, Matthew

[Moses Anthony]

Matthew, Richard

Isn't that the whole point of being named after a saint of early Church history. Granted that they were both prophets; Elisha, was a farmer who requested and received a double portion of the spirit that was upon Elijah. My namesake was a leader of a nation, but inwardly was a humble man , and the friend of God. Among the Apostles we have at least two who were married, Peter and James. The examples could, no doubt, go on and on.

My situation is not the same as the Hebrew Moses, or the Ethiopian; however, it woud be an extreme understatement to say I would like to be known as having the ways of God revealed to me, or to acheive that blissful state of dispassion. I ache for a long life for no other reason than that on this earth I might know in myself such an inner life as my namesake.

And so, I struggle with humility, kindness, compassion, anger, honesty, faithlessness and love, not in the wadis of Egypt but in a marriage, on any street, USA. And I ask for the prayers of the one whose mantle I would have upon my shoulders, to replace the yoke of slavery to the devil.

the unworthy servant
moses

[Interested]

Could anybody give references to saints who have been married? I have heard of some before, but I don't know their names. I would like to read about the lives of some married saints.

[John Wehling]

David and Mary Ford have a book called "Lives of Married Saints" that gives info on many married saints throughout the history of the Church. It is from STOTS Press.

Hope this helps,
John Wehling

[sinjin smithe]

I just found this article today and it does somewhat relate to what is being discussed here.

{URL, Celibacy, Marriage, Adultery}http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/celibacy.htm#_Toc15823283

[Andonis Saridopoulos]

hi singin,
i read the article by father alexander, and it penetrated me deeply. i could fully relate to it, for i too have plunged inot the darkness of spiritual death when i have given into the passions of carnal lust. i tried to convince myself that my actions, based on my own self gratifying reasoning, and not God's law. every time i have succumbed to this temptation, i have felt alienation from God. exactly as the father describes, sex outside of the marrital union, saps you of a large degree of energy, both physical and mental. it darkens the "nous" and allows the seed of doubt, fear, anxiety to be planted and to grow. why modern society refuses to accept this is beyond me. ?!?

[sinjin smithe]

Dear Andonis,
I am so glad that you read that article. It really enlightened me the first time that I had read it. It gave me strength to remain abstinent from sex until, God willing, I am someday married. I would recommend checking out the rest of that website as it has many excellent articles on Orthodox spirituality such as the article, entitled "Rules for a pious life."

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to Sinjin's message no. 48

Sinjin, thanks for this link! I have already read two of the listed articles - Rules of a Pious Life and Life after Death - which I found on other site. Lots more reading in store for me!



Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Sinjin, I have just been looking at the "Holy Scriptures" section. I am really excited about finding this - just what I needed. Passages from the bible but with an Orthodox commentary accompanying them. Something that I didn't have.

Again, thanks for the link!

Effie

[Andonis Saridopoulos]

Hi Effie,
i mustered the courage to tell my girlfreind yesterday that we should break up. she became hysterical and refused to accept the idea. i tried to be with her entirely honest. i spoke of the fact that i had a feeling deep inside me that we weren't meant to be together. i spoke to her about our co-habitation, our intimacy, which whether we like it or not has weakened us, and alienated us from a Godly course. furthermore, there wouldn't be any guilt if i felt that this was based on love and an eternal yearning to be with her. something deep inside me tells me that it is lust, it isn't genuine love. and as far as i am concerned that is justification enough to terminate the relationship. the pain that follows should be viewed as penance in drawing you once again towards the divine. i tried to explain all that to her, and she wouldn't have it. she said that my becoming overly religious, has fanatisised me, and i'm crucifying myself unecessarily. in the process destroying something which according to her will definitely work. my guilt eats me up, i can't sleep, eat, work feeling that i am not living righteously. yet she appears to be able to function. i have the strongest desire to be cleansed, confess and repent. i don't think us being together will allow me to do that. i feel that inside a great spiritual battle is occuring. one side must prevail. God have mercy on me, and lead me to the correct path...

[Effie Ganatsios]

Hi Andoni.

I'm so sorry that both you and your friend are suffering at this time. I know that this decision was not made lightly on your part and that you were greatly troubled beforehand.

I hope this doesn't sound trite but I am going to include you in my prayers, asking that you and your friend find peace and love.

Effie

[Andonis Saridopoulos]

dear Effie,
thank God, for he has heard your prayers. My girflfreind today has completely accepted my decision and has even thanked me for it. she was a lot calmer and we began to talk to eachother in a beautiful, caring, Godly way. our words were full of compassion and concern for one another. although it was causing us pain and suffering God gave us the strength to be composed and rational. although we were both feeling pain, it felt as we were about to experience a spiritual resurection, and it filled both our hearts with joy. i sincerely feel that this was the right step and that it will lead us both eventually to peace. i thank God he gave us both the strength, and i thank people like yourself who prayed for us...

[Moses Anthony]

Andonis,
It's an interesting thing that in our life as orthodox Christians we spend a lot of time denying the practices of the wrold. However, some things are constant across time, borders and moralities. One such thing is the formation of character. Our character is formed in how we respond to the troubles/difficulties each of us face. We are never the better when we run away from hard times. The difference in this is that as Christians, it's more a matter of morality than it is social acceptance.

tus

[Andonis Saridopoulos]

James,
this is true. its funny as an orthodox christian you feel so compelled to do what is morally correct. i felt that i had to take the step i mentioned because the dishonesty in which i was living was like a noose around my neck. i don't know for the life of me how people can in fact live in pretense, not listen to their hearts, and become slaves to falsehood. i could feel my heart telling me clearly that you must terminate this relationship, for here you are not doing God's will. meanwhile you are involving another person whom has their own contribution to make and must be let free to persue this.
although sentimental, and melancholic about my times with her, i know in my heart i have done the right thing, and this gives me immense solace. i once again feel God's embrace, and the fulfilment at times is so intense, its a wonder i don't burst into whales and tears. such joy is to be found in sorrow. such is my delight in being Orthodox Christian.