The pursuit of knowledge in light of the fathers

[Olympiada]

I am a member of a critical biblical studies group that is challenging my intellect, as does this community. I am beginning to wonder how the fathers and the monks view the pursuit of knowledge, especially critical knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge seems to be causing me pain. Do the fathers or the monks ever talk about this?

In Christ
Olympiada

[Justin]

I don't have any quotes offhand, but it seems to me that some were against it, and some were for it. An example of being for it could be Basil the Great, who says that young men (http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/basil_litterature01.htm)should read the greek poets, historians, etc.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Olympiada

I find in myself a rather conflicting range of feelings, which I think are also found in the Fathers.

Perhaps it is helpful to consider that there are varieties of knowledge, and varieties of seeking after knowledge.

I have never been able to get into philosophy, for instance, because I find that it doesn't ask the questions I am interested in, and doesn't provide any answers that satisfy me. I always, and this is only a personal response, feel that it is a poor use of my time to become proficient in something which I do not sense would help me. (That is only my personal response).

On the other hand I am very interested in a range of historical studies and over Christmas I bought several historical works. I think I rather have the opinion, for myself only, that I can learn a lot about humanity, my own, and that of those in the world around me, through historical study, but that philosophy sometimes tends to be in the modern world, about people trying to be too clever for their own good - the wisdom of this world etc.

I have pretty much the same view with theology and scriptural studies. I can sometimes force myself to read even very liberal and anti-Orthodox theological material if I have in mind coming to understand what they are arguing and trying to understand why. But I can never bring myself to read such books simply for knowledge.

I find the same with scriptural studies. I want to know a little bit about Higher Criticism, for instance, but I do not want to study Higher Criticism because I think it a dead end, a waste of my time.

There should certainly be no fear of learning about anything, but we only have a certain amount of time each day and we need to be careful to husband it well. I am presently engaged in learning Syriac, and it is taking up a full day each month as well as time each day, but I have an end in view, which is to be better able to study and understand the writings of the Syriac Fathers, and even contribute to such study as far as my weak abilities allow.

I guess that you need to judge, and ask the advice of those around you, as to whether you are studying for the sake of accumulating knowledge, or whether you are studying for the sake of growth as a Christian person, and for the benefit of your own mind and soul and that of others.

It isn't so easy to judge. Someone could spend their lives studying the Jesus Prayer for instance, and yet be prideful and competely lack a spirit of prayer. But equally some other Christian could be a botanist and engage in no sustained study as you are, but could find and glorify God in all his studies of the world God has made.

So there is no easy equation between non-Orthodox studies being all bad, or non-spiritual studies being all bad, or even the study of anti-Christian movements being all bad. Balance is probably required in this aspect of our lives as everything else, and that is what our priests are for.

Best wishes in your studies this year

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Olympiada

I find in myself a rather conflicting range of feelings, which I think are also found in the Fathers.

Perhaps it is helpful to consider that there are varieties of knowledge, and varieties of seeking after knowledge.

I have never been able to get into philosophy, for instance, because I find that it doesn't ask the questions I am interested in, and doesn't provide any answers that satisfy me. I always, and this is only a personal response, feel that it is a poor use of my time to become proficient in something which I do not sense would help me. (That is only my personal response).

On the other hand I am very interested in a range of historical studies and over Christmas I bought several historical works. I think I rather have the opinion, for myself only, that I can learn a lot about humanity, my own, and that of those in the world around me, through historical study, but that philosophy sometimes tends to be in the modern world, about people trying to be too clever for their own good - the wisdom of this world etc.

I have pretty much the same view with theology and scriptural studies. I can sometimes force myself to read even very liberal and anti-Orthodox theological material if I have in mind coming to understand what they are arguing and trying to understand why. But I can never bring myself to read such books simply for knowledge.

I find the same with scriptural studies. I want to know a little bit about Higher Criticism, for instance, but I do not want to study Higher Criticism because I think it a dead end, a waste of my time.

There should certainly be no fear of learning about anything, but we only have a certain amount of time each day and we need to be careful to husband it well. I am presently engaged in learning Syriac, and it is taking up a full day each month as well as time each day, but I have an end in view, which is to be better able to study and understand the writings of the Syriac Fathers, and even contribute to such study as far as my weak abilities allow.

I guess that you need to judge, and ask the advice of those around you, as to whether you are studying for the sake of accumulating knowledge, or whether you are studying for the sake of growth as a Christian person, and for the benefit of your own mind and soul and that of others.

It isn't so easy to judge. Someone could spend their lives studying the Jesus Prayer for instance, and yet be prideful and competely lack a spirit of prayer. But equally some other Christian could be a botanist and engage in no sustained study as you are, but could find and glorify God in all his studies of the world God has made.

So there is no easy equation between non-Orthodox studies being all bad, or non-spiritual studies being all bad, or even the study of anti-Christian movements being all bad. Balance is probably required in this aspect of our lives as everything else, and that is what our priests are for.

Best wishes in your studies this year

Peter


I also read history as my 'secondary reading'. Partly this is just a bias as it was what I studied and enjoyed most while at university. But also history is unique I think in how it includes so many other disciplines and even arts in the way it is composed.

For example right now I am reading The Great War & Modern Memory by Paul Fussell which is a real classic about how the First World War had an impact on our modern culture. The focus is mainly through modern British literature but the insights for the most part apply across the board.

I am a strong believer in feeling the pulse of society by any appropriate means. Reading really does help but personally I also follow quite a bit of media. Movies for example apart from being of interest in themselves and plain enjoyable are also a very faithful indication of where society is at. Comparing movies from let's say the 1930s or 40s to now is a real lesson in how society has changed. Of course movies are partly a dream world but they still faithfully reflect the aspirations and preoccupations of a particular time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

I am a strong believer in feeling the pulse of society by any appropriate means. Reading really does help but personally I also follow quite a bit of media. Movies for example apart from being of interest in themselves and plain enjoyable are also a very faithful indication of where society is at. Comparing movies from let's say the 1930s or 40s to now is a real lesson in how society has changed. Of course movies are partly a dream world but they still faithfully reflect the aspirations and preoccupations of a particular time.

Dear Father

I am so glad to read your post. Since we know so little about each other it would be too easy for me to assume that you might take a more anti-culture view, and I am very pleased to see that you don't, and glad to be able to have a greater insight into who you are.

There are some things that are just plain not good for an Orthodox Christian to be involved in, but apart from the obviously sinful, do you think that Christians should be able to draw a lesson from most things, even if it is a reflection on our sinfulness?

As you say so well, movies are a means of feeling the pulse of society. I wonder if I should look more carefully at the things I read and watch to see what they are saying about my own society and culture? What are people wanting, dreaming about, hoping for, afraid of?

Do you think there are media that are off limits for Orthodox? Or do you read a newspaper and watch the news etc?

Happy New Year - indeed even the celebrations of the New Year are instructive.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter, Dear Fr. Raphael,

Yet another good discussion - excellent start to 2007 on Monachos.

This is a problematic one, not least given the Gibbonian stereotype of the Orthodox Church as dim, reactionary and anti-intellectual, and its long persistence in the West; even now two of my fellow professors give me odd looks because of my interest in Orthodoxy. They could quite understand it if, like them, I converted to Rome - but Orthodoxy - 'my dear fellow!'

Well, that's their problem at one level, but instructive that two very intellectual religious historians of some distinction in international scholarship should have such a reaction to one of their close friends journeying towards Orthodoxy; it suggests much work to be done.

I am fortunate in that my main interest, history, is also how I earn my keep; that much of my reading is as far away from my 'period' as possible may be another matter, but we'll let that one pass.

But I am struck by questions posed in what you both write about our interaction, as Christians, with the cultural outputs of this society. It is not just the overwhelmingly secularist nature of such outputs, it is also their ability to corrupt.

The overt sexuality in much of the visual media means that I tend to steer clear of it; not through prudishness, but through knowing where my own weaknesses lie, and the certainty that viewing such material would not be good for me. But beyond the personal, can it actually be good for any society to see something as sacred as the relationship between men and women commercialised and degraded to a purely physical act? Can it be good for a misogynistic culture to view women in the way much of the visual media does? What message do we sent to our sons - and our daughters?

Newspapers are, for me, a necessity of life, and when I don't get my 'fix', I miss it. But my wife, who is much less fussed about these things, often does not bother to read the paper because, she says, it depresses her to see what is reported as going on in the world; she can, she says, do without it. But I feel that as a citizen (or, to be accurate, a subject of the Crown) I need to know what is happening; but do I?

My wife is a great reader of what might be called 'serious' modern literary novels, and wonders at my inability, and lack of desire, to engage with them. As far as I am concerned, anything post Trollope is a bit 'modern', with the exception of the great J.R.R. Tolkein (am I the only one who thinks that the House of Elrond is like an Orthodox haven, and that Minas Tirith is Constantinople before 1453?). But I have an uneasy feeling that I do not wish to engage with these cultural artefacts, any more than I do with much of 'modern art'.

In so far as my knowledge helps me, and others, towards a Christian understanding of how it can be to be in this world, I am happy to acquire as much knowledge as my brain can cope with - but coming back to the gospels, especially that of St. John, is always like coming home.

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Maybe it would be interesting to jot down what we have been reading the past week, so that at least in my case I can separate out what I think I should have been reading from what I actually did.

I have been reading:

i. Terry Prachett - a fantasy fiction writer whose world is an amusing view of our own. I read him to relax when I have a few minutes. In fact I have some of his novels on my IPAQ so I tend to read when I am stuck somewhere.

ii. The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath - a really good account of the rise and present decline of atheism. It was very interesting and provided lots of thought-provoking moments. I bought this myself with a book token after Christmas.

iii. The Times (of London) website most days to read the main stories and editorials and sometimes to post on Ruth Gledhill's blog. (the Times religion correspondent)

iv. The Knights Templar in Britain, by Evelyn Lord - which John Charmley tells me is acceptably not looney! I've just started reading it and it is enjoyable because it is real history, real documentary evidence etc.

Nothing very spiritual this week, although I did have St Silouan the Athonite with me and dipped into it a bit. But Christmas and New Year was a busy time and I spent a lot of it standing in clothes shops with my wife and decided I would finish the McGrath book while I was doing so.

What have you and others been reading? What does this say about us? I hope it shows that I am fairly normal?

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father

I am so glad to read your post. Since we know so little about each other it would be too easy for me to assume that you might take a more anti-culture view, and I am very pleased to see that you don't, and glad to be able to have a greater insight into who you are.

There are some things that are just plain not good for an Orthodox Christian to be involved in, but apart from the obviously sinful, do you think that Christians should be able to draw a lesson from most things, even if it is a reflection on our sinfulness?

As you say so well, movies are a means of feeling the pulse of society. I wonder if I should look more carefully at the things I read and watch to see what they are saying about my own society and culture? What are people wanting, dreaming about, hoping for, afraid of?

Do you think there are media that are off limits for Orthodox? Or do you read a newspaper and watch the news etc?

Happy New Year - indeed even the celebrations of the New Year are instructive.

Peter


I don't know- I expect much of this is personal. Any kind of visual presentations involving sexual immorality are obviously wrong. Personally I'm also very turned off by cheap crudity of any sort such as the tendency in modern sit-coms to a continual banter of sexual innuendo & insulting others.

I don't normally read newspapers but that's simply because I almost religiously follow the news every day- BBC at 5pm, ABC at 5:30pm & our own CBC The National at 10pm (in Canada the news is 'done' right before bed). This gives a wide degree of perspective on the same stories. (BBC was reporting that Baghdad was virtually no-go in many areas and an obvious sectarian civil war was ongoing, a full month or so before ABC used such descriptions.)The basic point though is just to have one's hand on the pulse of society.

Books I find really help in this regard. Besides spiritual reading I also tend towards history but also (OK- now I'll have to go to confession) read military history. Nowadays military history is not just about soldiers and battles, but seems to include every possible discipline.

Again though I think a lot of this is just personal when it comes to 'secondary knowledge'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

An interesting idea, so in a spirit of cooperation, here goes:

1. Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume I, especially the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

2. St. Cyril of Alexandria's commentary on St. John, vol. I, which I am working my way through - an excellent commentary, and I am grateful to you, Peter, and the OOL for printing it.

3. BOC's Our Daily Life - that is now part of my daily life

4. Dr. M. Green, The Books the Church Suppressed - an excellent account of the way the gospels came into being

5. Orthodoxy & Western Culture - a collection of essays to honour Jaroslav Pelikan, which I am getting an immense amount out of.

6. Fr. C. Matthews, Eastern Orthodoxy Compared - which one of my sons bought me for Christmas, and which I am finding very useful

7. L. R. Farley, The Gospel of John: Beholding the Glory - an illuminating, Orthodox, companion

8. Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalen - a present from my wife, and quite infuriating, but thought-provoking - a feminist reading, of course.

9. Fergus Fleming, The Sword and the Cross - an account of two French adventurers and their time in the Sahara, which I am just getting into.

Jotting it down like this tells me that I am spending a lot of time reading - but I hope I am spending an equal amount of time thinking and praying.

I think it is an inevitable part of being on this journey that much of my reading at the moment is on the topics listed above - but I hope I don't delude myself that what I am looking for is to be found there.

Still, it is a lot better than my reading for next week, which consists of a great pile of University documents written in a language that pretends to be English, but which no-one ever spoke.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Spiritual reading:

Exomologitarian- A Manual of Confession by St Nikodemos the Hagiorite

Venerable Bede's Homilies on the Gospels- especially those on the Nativity of Christ (there seem to be four)

The Orthodox Word (latest edition)


for fun: The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell

[Peter Farrington]

Father, I am glad that you also like reading about the Great War, although of course it is hard for me to put myself into the shoes of an American studying that conflict. I think that Britons have a poor understanding of when, where and how the US joined the Allies and helped bring the war to a conclusion.

I find great benefit in reading about the bravery and commitment to duty of so many ordinary young men. All must have known that they hd a very significant risk of death and injury, yet they still went to do their duty.

Nowadays it is sad when even one soldier dies of course, but we find it difficult to accept that this is the cost of such service.

I wonder for myself how I would have answered the call? And it wasn't a matter of great heroism, it was just what everyone seems to have felt was necessary to protect the country and to defeat tyranny.

So I do enjoy reading around the Great War, and it is very moving to visit some of the battlefields in France and Belgium. Have you ever been there? Row upon row of white crosses, but all cared for so respectfully. Very moving and inspiring.

Yet I hesitate to take up arms against the sin and weakness in my own life?

Peter

[Anthony]

I have often wondered about this question; in particular it comes to the forefront whenever I think about monasticism. I know (or have heard) that some Orthodox monasteries have a very anti-intellectual streak, though there are also monasteries which have been, at times, centres of scholarship.

At the moment I also am fortunate enough to make a living out of what was originally a hobby (languages), though I don't know how much more mileage there will be in that in the present climate. I have an almost equally great interest in history (European, ancient and "oriental"). I have to admit, though, that a ridiculous amount of my reading over the past year has been chess books. In spiritual terms it has been a very sterile time for me, to put it mildly.

I now get most of my news from the internet, for better or for worse. If I did start taking a newspaper regularly, it would probably be to improve my German.

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter, Dear Anthony, Dear Father Raphael,

Anthony's comment:


I know (or have heard) that some Orthodox monasteries have a very anti-intellectual streak, though there are also monasteries which have been, at times, centres of scholarship.

certainly speaks to that western stereotype I mentioned a few posts ago. But surely this is beginning to change? Certainly St. Vladimir's Seminary and its press offer a wonderful example to the world of Orthodox scholarship.

I do wonder what effect the long period when Orthodoxy has been on the defensive has had upon this part of its work in the world. Professor McGuckin's comment, also quoted a few posts ago, points this up. Spending so many years as a Millet within the Ottoman Empire, or else as the Imperial Church in Russia, or under tight state control in the newly independent Greece, or remaining under persecution in the countries of the Middle East, so much of the energy of Orthodoxy was spent in defending itself and ministering to its people - or in looking over its shoulder at the state - that it had little enough time to renew its glorious heritage of scholarship.

Just when that might have happened in Russia, the Godless Bolsheviks seized power and the great Russian Church too found itself struggling to sirvive. Of course, this period has produced some great martyrs whose blood has nourished the seeds of faith in so many others, but again, such times are not conducive to scholarship.

Yet, looking at it now, it seems to me there is some wonderful Orthodox scholarship to read, and that the contribution being made by Orthodox scholars to our intellectual life is extremely rich. Just in the last six months I have been reading books by the late (and great) Fr. Meyendorff and Professor McGuckin, whose work not only stands any secular test of scholarship one might wish to impose, but also advances our understanding of our Faith.

McGuckin's book on St. Cyril and the Christological controversy seems to me not only to be a very considerable work of history, but also one of the best accounts of the history of Christological thinking that I have read; it might be the case that he is occasionally unfair to Nestorius (although if he is, it is partly because of the difficulty of nailing down what Nestorius was actually getting at at times), but his treatment of St. Cyril's thought is rigorous, clear, and accessible. Moreover, after reading it, one can see very clearly how important Cyril's thought was for the participants at Chalcedon; it would be very difficult for any scholar ever, again, to assert that the Tome of Leo was decisive, when, as McGuckin shows, what was decisive in its acceptance was its adherence to Cyrilline thinking.

Now that, I would suggest, shows beautifully how true scholarship can (and I suspect should) work to the edification of the faithful. The same, I would suggest, is true of some of the work being done rather closer to this part of this site.

We should not be afraid to use any of the gifts which God has given to us - but we should always be careful about how we exercise them. As we have been told in Matthew 5:16:


Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.


In Christ,


John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have often wondered about this question; in particular it comes to the forefront whenever I think about monasticism. I know (or have heard) that some Orthodox monasteries have a very anti-intellectual streak, though there are also monasteries which have been, at times, centres of scholarship.

At the moment I also am fortunate enough to make a living out of what was originally a hobby (languages), though I don't know how much more mileage there will be in that in the present climate. I have an almost equally great interest in history (European, ancient and "oriental"). I have to admit, though, that a ridiculous amount of my reading over the past year has been chess books. In spiritual terms it has been a very sterile time for me, to put it mildly.

I now get most of my news from the internet, for better or for worse. If I did start taking a newspaper regularly, it would probably be to improve my German.


Each monastery is different but the main focus of this way of life needs always be on the higher noetic kind of knowledge. This doesn't at all mean that monasticism denies the role of other kinds of knowledge. But specifically as monastics there is a conscious withdrawal from pursuing other kinds of knowledge so as to be able to focus one's attention on the higher way of knowing.

Two things are very important to keep in mind here. Only a few monastics have reached the stage where their whole concentration can be on inner prayer, the reading of spiritual literature and the services. Most of course work which does take organizational skill and knowledge. Many also read other books besides what is strictly spiritual.

Secondly the role of the intellect or other kind of knowledge is never denied even in monasticism. Look for example at someone like St Gregory Palamas. Reading his works one can easily see that what he writes is based on experience and a life totally centred in a hesychastic way on the noetic Light. However how St Gregory expresses himself also makes use of his great intellectual skills which were obvious in his day.

In fact it was probably the combination of these two which caused the Hagiorite monks to call on St Gregory to take up a defense of hesychasm. His knowledge was based on first hand experience of the hesychast way of life. But he also had the intellectual skills to be able to understand Barlaam's & Akindynos' arguments and their philosophical background.

Thus St Gregory used both ways of knowledge in his defense of hesychasm.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Yes, I think that this is an important point.

Not that we gain knowledge of those various non-Christian philosophies so much for their own value, but rather so that we understand to some degree so that we are able to speak about our own faith more understandably.

If we do not have a clue where someone is 'coming from' then it is hard to speak to them. Are they a hardline athiest? Or an agnostic? A materialist? or a positivist? We should probably all have a better knowledge of Islam than we do. All of these are useful so that we can speak to those who hold these views, and also of course so that we can understand their own criticism of Christianity.

Atheism, for instance, often feeds off a Christianity which has a God who is not really present in the world, and off a Christianity which places an emphasis on the Church as an authority and locus of power in the world. These are valid criticisms, and in understanding what drives a philosophy we can understand how to respond to it. Our Orthodox Faith, for instance, leads us to experience a God who is present, and who transforms our lives, and calls us to live as servants, not as masters.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

What Fr. Raphael says has great wisdom, not least for those of us who are not called to that level.

Where we find ourselves we are bombarded with information, and I do think there is a temptation to succumb to the intellectual equivalent of snacking on fast food. It comes back to what we have said before about the nature of this medium we are using here.

The temptation to think that quicker is best, and fastest is the best of all, ought to be resisted. The nature of how we think and what we think with has not changed just because the IT has. We still need time to reflect on what we read, and to read in a manner that allows us to digest.

The modern fashion in higher education for 'modular' courses always worries me, because it comes from a science model, which may be relevant there, but I am not sure humanistic knowledge proceeds in the same way. My senior science colleague on the University's research committee is regularly surprised by my protests that we can't just junk all books and articles before 2000, or just use on-line material.

For our purposes here, the Patristic material we read and study is of vital importance, and its development as part of the Church's tradition, along with our understanding of our Faith, is crucial to the way we proceed. It can't be reduced to bite sized chunks, learnt for an occasion, such as an exam or a presentation, and then forgotten. The process is one of accretion and addition, in which insights come, if at all, through processes we don't fully comprehend.

The drawback for all education systems that try to measure everything is that you can only measure what can be measured - and the things that really count in a humane education can't be measured. When I see a student in her final year asking me questions to which not only do I not know the answer, but which I have not even thought about formulating, I know I'm doing my job properly - but there is no tick-box for that feeling.

For those of us who are Christians and who are educators, there is a responsibility to show, through how we conduct ourselves and how we conduct the discussions through which knowledge is passed on and added to, how our Faith is never inimical to intellectual enquiry - however much a few Oxford atheists may, through their form of discourse, show that they are.

But, I am mindful of the mercy of Our Lord - who may have provided Professor Dawkins from Oxford, but also provides Dr. Steenberg and Monachos. Of course, the latter makes less fuss, occupies fewer newspaper columns - and does more good - but that is fine!


In Christ,

John


In Christ

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Jutting in rather late to this discussion (which I've enjoyed very much reading), I thought I would just add my own perspectives on media news reporting. I must say that one of the reasons I still favour newspapers, and now indeed the internet, over most television media, is precisely the ability to not read what I don't think will be of benefit. It's easy to read a headline and say, 'Nope; next', whereas with television one is in a sense 'committed' to whatever reporting is being thrust at you.

Nonetheless, there are times when the visual is a good aid, and the video images from television cannot be reproduced in still shots on paper. As far as television news goes, I tend to find that the BBC is about all I can stomach (and I tend to find it decent). Having been in the USA now for the past two weeks, I can say that I've yet to see a single newscast on network television here that I didn't find utterly repugnant and horrifying; but there is something of a bias in this, perhaps. The News Hour on American PBS seems quite good, however, so there is some compensation.

Personally, I find radio news reporting much better than television, given that the lack of a visual fallback means that stories have to be conveyed in much more articulate form. Analysis of events and descriptions of activities tend to be much more thorough on radio than ever on television. BBC Radio 4 is the mainstay for me in this regard; in the USA I find National Public Radio's news programme ('All Things Considered') quite good; though I don't know it well enough to know of any biases, etc.

With strong news sites (e.g. news.bbc.co.uk) offering good, timely reporting that includes ample video footage where appropriate, I must say I find selectivity in reading much more fruitful in this realm.

I've not known most of the fathers to suggest backing away from an awareness of the world's goings-on. The task they set before us is to gain through ascetical purification the discernment necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff, as far as world news is concerned; to develop an awareness of what is good for the soul - not only in terms of content, but also delivery, etc.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Matthew

Do you not find that the substance of news.bbc.co.uk seems to have thinned right down so that most pieces are now about 200 words and might have been written by an A level student for O level students? I find myself struggling to find a decent news website that has serious analysis. I get really annoyed that news.bbc seems to be dumbing down and the headlines often seem just plain deceitful and are twisting the content they attract notice to. I am tending to spend more time at times.co.uk.

I note that some of my own children seem to have a much shorter attention span than I had and have. Is this a result of media changes such as those I deplore at news.bbc, or is news.bbc just reflecting such a change?

I wonder how this change might affect the way we share our faith? If people become unable to concentrate for long then do we need to find easier, smaller and more digestible ways of communicating just one idea at a time? I have found that those who start becoming Orthodox also start to want to study and read more seriously, but I am thinking about those first contacts? Should we not be reaching out to people with the attention span of a butterfly as well as to professors and doctors?

I guess it is a good sign that many of us here and in the UK and the world DO expect more from media. At least we have not all been dumbed down. :-) Orthodoxy and having no interest in the world around us and within us just don't seem to go together as far as I can see. Orthodoxy demands a serious search for truth and a life giving gnosis. Is the present trend for substance-less media part of an effort by the enemy of our souls to try and prevent people seeking after truth because it requires more than 30 seconds to be an expert?

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

I sympathise with Matthew's experiences in the US, although perhaps a few years over here have helped him forget how truly awful TV there can be; having lived there for a year, I felt in tune with the Bruce Springsteen song, '57 channels and nothing on' - how right!

But UK TV is going down the same road. I'm just thinking about a proposal for a TV programme about a maverick ex-cop PI who has an unconventional private life, is into gardening, is an expert cook, who teams up with a fiesty young (attractive) female side-kick who is into renovating old houses and has a sister who is in a reality TV programme about fast cars and slow horses; have I missed anything?

But seriously, the best thing the BBC does is the radio. Radio 3 and Radio 4 are what I listen to, and the news on Radio 4 is incomparably better than anything on the TV.

But all of this 'fast food' approach to life gives Orthodoxy an advantage - there are plenty of people out there who are looking for the purpose of life, and who will take time and trouble to find it - and given how little Orthodoxy actually does by way of going out and looking for them, and how many come to it all the same - that can''t be bad.

That is why, when we have been discussing 'mission', I have always tended to side with those who do what you and the BOC do - which is to be there, be available, and to be intelligible in English with an English ethos. As you have said many times, when the BOC gets a foothold in Wales and Scotland, it will be the Liturgy in Welsh and Gaelic one day - God willing!

One of the many good things about this site - and it is why I first came here - is that it provides so many resources about Orthodoxy for those searching. It is a living witness to how to combine the pursuit of Knowledge and the Fathers.

In Christ,

John

[Tanya Hoadley]

Greetings All,

I live in the US and I've discovered something. A person can be a functioning member of society even if they don't watch the news on TV or listen to the radio or read the newspaper.

Yes, I know, quite shocking.

Livin' life on the edge......

You wouldn't believe how much time it frees up for pursuing one's interests.

Tanya

[John Charmley]

Greetings All,

I live in the US and I've discovered something. A person can be a functioning member of society even if they don't watch the news on TV or listen to the radio or read the newspaper.

Yes, I know, quite shocking.

Livin' life on the edge......

You wouldn't believe how much time it frees up for pursuing one's interests.

Tanya

Dear Tanya,

Ah, but then we were talking about knowledge! So thanks for reminding us how little of that quality there is in the media you mention - and for the smile your wit brought me.

English radio is an exception, at least two of the channels, but of course, joking aside, you are correct. How much time we can waste on such ephemera - now where's that Trollope novel I was reading ... ?


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Tanya

I also agree with you that there is much in modern media which is trivialising and only serves to use up valuable time.

I said somewhere else on Monachos I think that having dropped quite a few of my other list memberships also freed up much time. Not every post on every list is worth reading!

English radio is different, at least in the case of two channels. But I have given up radio on the drive to work so that I can pray the morning office, and now just ration myself to the radio on the way home.

This thread is raising the question in my mind,

How much do we need to know about the world/society around us to be good Christians?

How do we pray and serve the world if we don't know all the news stories?

I would value yours, and others thoughts.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

I wonder if St. Isaac of Nineveh might help us here? In Homily LXXX he writes about three forms of knowledge:


The first knowledge comes from constant study and diligence in learning; the second comes from a good manner of life and the intellect's faith; and the third is now allotted to faith alone. For by faith knowledge is abolished, works come to an end, and the employment of the senses becomes superfluous.


So, in trying to learn as much about the world we are in, without it taking us over, we may be said to be acquiring knowledge in the first degree; trying to live the Christian life we are called to, striving to achieve theosis whilst trusting in the Incarnate Word, gives us the second degree; but the third degree comes without our effort and is the result of God's operation within us.

That first degree seems to have been subject to a distinction between sacred knowledge, and knowledge from without, secular knowledge. The West, under Augustinian influence, in part, has tended to put great faith in the power of reason and philosophy as the way to apprehend God - leaving the way open to a division between Faith and Reason. That is a crude over-simplification of a complex process over time, but not, I hope, an unfair caricature.

St. Isaac seems to have been basing himself in part on St. Paul. In 1 Corinthians 2:7-8. he writes:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. In 1 Corinthians 2:12, he tells us:
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 he tells us:
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I think this three-fold division of knowledge is helpful to our discussion here - and its misapprehension by the west (and perhaps, at times its misapplication in the east?) has helped created the stereotype of the Orthodox Church as being almost anti-intellectual. This is to misapprehend, or so it seems to me, what is meant by 'knowledge'. But I await correction and amplification from those who have spent much more time on this difficult, but necessary topic.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Peter,

I wonder if St. Isaac of Nineveh might help us here? In Homily LXXX he writes about three forms of knowledge:


So, in trying to learn as much about the world we are in, without it taking us over, we may be said to be acquiring knowledge in the first degree; trying to live the Christian life we are called to, striving to achieve theosis whilst trusting in the Incarnate Word, gives us the second degree; but the third degree comes without our effort and is the result of God's operation within us.

That first degree seems to have been subject to a distinction between sacred knowledge, and knowledge from without, secular knowledge. The West, under Augustinian influence, in part, has tended to put great faith in the power of reason and philosophy as the way to apprehend God - leaving the way open to a division between Faith and Reason. That is a crude over-simplification of a complex process over time, but not, I hope, an unfair caricature.

St. Isaac seems to have been basing himself in part on St. Paul. In 1 Corinthians 2:7-8. he writes: In 1 Corinthians 2:12, he tells us: . In 1 Corinthians 2:14 he tells us:

I think this three-fold division of knowledge is helpful to our discussion here - and its misapprehension by the west (and perhaps, at times its misapplication in the east?) has helped created the stereotype of the Orthodox Church as being almost anti-intellectual. This is to misapprehend, or so it seems to me, what is meant by 'knowledge'. But I await correction and amplification from those who have spent much more time on this difficult, but necessary topic.


In Christ,

John

I think that much of this is at the root of the Great Schism.

I recently finished reading a book by Met Hierotheos Vlachos on St Gregory Palamas. In it Met Hierotheos explains how in the dispute with Barlaam, St Gregory was defending the hesychastic way of knowing as both the method and goal of the Christian life. Here I'm using my own words, but St Gregory far from denying the role of secondary or any other kind of knowledge is actually trying to show how this secondary knowledge must be illumined by (or at least fit into the context of) noetic knowing.

Barlaam of course being influenced by western theories of knowledge believed that intellectual methods were proper means for Divine knowledge. Here, I'm not sure this meant a school-book kind of knowledge. I'm not sure it's fair to equate Barlaam's point with what we mean today by being 'intellectual'. Rather under the contemporary philosophical trends of his day, Barlaam if anything was almost neo-Platonic & a spiritualizer of knowledge compared to St Gregory's vigorous defense of the role of both body & spirit in coming to know God.

Here we come to the irony in western thought at the time which on the one hand is quite disincarnate compared to Orthodox thought. On the other hand however the Orthodox critique of this way of thought understands that this method of knowledge is all too human and that its chief defect is that it relies too much on faculties too deeply affected by the Fall.

St Gregory then is not trying to deny the role of other ways of knowing than the hesychastic. We are mistaken if we interpret St Gregory's main intent in this way. Rather St Gregory is saying that knowledge must proceed in a certain way if it is truly to result in the glorification of our being by the Divine Light and not in a kind of self-glorification as a result of basking in the light of human nature.

Of course we can see how from Barlaam's perspective, St Gregory may have seemed anti-intellectual. A lot of this criticism though, still heard nowadays, is simply off the mark and misinformed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Tanya Hoadley]

Father Raphael Bless,

Dear Peter, John and all,

Thank you all for the questions, teachings and insight that you bring to this discussion. It is of great benefit to me as I search for understanding of this "difficult but necessary" topic.

At times I question whether some of my intellectual interests are of benefit to my salvation or just the vanity of wanting to know more. Are they of benefit to others? To the Church?

As we seek God, I don't think it's possible not to gain knowledge in the process. But I fear it is very possible to seek knowledge and end up with only the pseudo-knowledge of man.

In Christ,
Tanya

[Peter Farrington]

Thank you to all contributors on this interesting thread..

To add something to my own question of a few posts back. I am thinking that in fact we do not need to know very much about 'the news' to still have an intercessors prayer life and a servant heart.

I think of some of the Desert Fathers who had occasion to travel up to Alexandria, and of course I know that their own lives cannot and should not always be merely copied. But often I recall that a father would come back and some of the brothers would say 'Well how was it out on the world, Father? What news is there?' And it seems to me that the Fathers either had not noticed anything of the world because they had kept their heads lowered to the ground that they might not be disturbed, or else they had been rather oblivious of all 'the world' and just noted that it all seemed to be carrying on as before.

And even when I am naturally drawn to consider the service of Christians such as Mother Teresa, I am not sure that she made it her business to know the business of everyone else in the world, even though she was keenly aware of the need right in front of her and was quite capable of lobbying Churches and Governments and other Agencies to do something.

For myself, I often find that when I am using the Jesus Prayer to intercede for people I cannot recall everyone's name and everyone's needs, and I have had to rather let go of these details which are known to God and simply pray for all those who are on my heart and whom I do care for, and all those others whom I do not know but whom God knows. (This is not to say I think I or anyone else should not pray for individual people and needs.)

But I can recall as an Evangelical that I would struggle to think of every detail of some persons need, and would try to come up with the solution that I wanted God to provide. Now I understand that He already knows the needs and already is working out the solution. My place is to offer up the spiritual ache for others which God places in my heart.

So whereas I would once have thought it a necessary thing to go through the local newspapers and find all the needs and name them, and provide the solutions for God as well, now I know that this sort of knowledge is not required for my prayer to be effectual (as effectual as my sinfulness can deserve). Rather it is through the direct experiential knowledge of God that I find the proper substance of my intercessions. Remembering a name and a need here, praying for all those I work with there, interceding for the whole world even.

None of this should be taken as abrogating the need to study and become knowledgeable about some domain of knowledge if and when God requires, especially in response to some ministry. If I felt called to be a missionary in Senegal (and I tested such a vocation some years ago) then I must know something about Senegal.

But I am sensing for myself that a pre-occupation with knowing every problem and need in the world can sometimes get in the way of prayer. Do I need to know and understand the causes of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Not to be able to pray for Palestinians and Israelis.

Should I have a deep knowledge to be able to pray 'intelligently'? I am no longer so sure. I am hesitantly thinking it is better to pray humbly than intelligently - if the intelligence of my prayers is measured by myself.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Much wisdom here, I think.

Can I offer for our reflection this from 1 John 5:1-5:

5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.
5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.
5:5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

which seems to guide us as we need to be guided. 'Whatever is born of God overcomes the world', and if we love God and keep his commandments then our faith will overcome the world.

St. Isaac needed only a few more words than St. John - and modern theologians take books to say it - but St. John got there first - but then given his inspiration, that should not surprise us.

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

A thought or two relevant to this theme.

We are told In St. Peter 1, 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
so from the very start thinking has been part of believing.

As St. Augustine reminds us: 'Not everyone who thinks believes, since many think in order not to believe; but everyone who believes thinks, thinks in believing, and believes in thinking.'

The intellectual effort of the early Church was directed at the same object as our own ought to be - namely winning the hearts and minds of women and men to Christ. In the 'American Orthodoxy' thread on this site there have been a few questions as to whether such intellectual endeavours as are going on there are worthwhile, but I suspect this is to miss a central point, which is to do with the nature of the early Church - as with the modern.

Some of us will be familiar with the older view among scholars such as von Harnack that the early Church underwent a process of Hellenisation. But I am struck by the way in which more modern scholars are presenting a much deeper and more nuanced picture, but one in which it might be truer to say that Hellenism was Christianised. As R.L. Wilken puts it in his 2003 book Early Christian Thought, 'one observes again and again that Christian thinking, while working within patterns of thought and conceptions rooted in Graeco-Roman culture, transformed them so profoundly that in the end something quite new came into being.' (p. xvii)

I wonder how we are doing by that high standard?


In Christ,

John