The Bauer hypothesis on apologetics

[Jordan Henderson]

Greetings in Christ!

Today in my 'Bible as Literature' class, my professor said to the class, "I want you to write the following statement down, and never forget it: 'Orthodox Christian doctrine was once only a competing opinion'."

Since Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, this has been a popular theological stance taken by many liberal scholars: Orthodoxy and heresy were equally early in the Church, and therefore should be given 'equal time'. (See Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, for example.)

I was wondering how some of you would respond to this assertion.

Jordan

[Razhden Guriadze]

I have never read Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity,but I can see where to a non-Orthodox historian this might seem to be so.

The amount of heresies and out-and-out lies which surrounded the early church caused the church to hold the councils.

Christianity was only one "theme".There is only one Truth. There are always many lies.

To an Orthodox person Orthodoxy is the only one which matters.

It is sad that the schools(theological, etc,) feel the need to teach "comparative theology".

When a bank is trying to teach tellers how to recognize counterfiet money they NEVER let them touch counterfeit money.

If you get used to dealing only with the truth then anything else sets of alarm bells.
I strongly suggest to everyone that they don't "clog up their brain" with "a mixture of assorted miscellaneous theology". Study the truth and leave the rest alone.

I have strayed,forgive me.
ICXC,
Razhden

[Richard McBride]

DIVERSITY in action; academics cannot seem to rid themselves of their phobia against hierarchies. In this mindset, all must be reduced a pabulum of egality. T'is curious that somehow, the American mind under its influence, feels compelled to reduce all things Christian to less than equal status.

[Richard McBride]

Razhden speaks Wisdom; let us attend.

Especially note:


"To an Orthodox person Orthodoxy is the only one which matters."

[Jordan Henderson]

Thank you for your responses, Razhden and Richard!

To be clear, my professor's assertion did not pose any problems for me as an Orthodox Christian. However, from an apologetic point of view, his claim should be taken seriously because no one else in the class is Orthodox, and many are not even Christian. So while I agree that "To an Orthodox person Orthodoxy is the only one which matters", at the same time, lies and heresies must be challenged for the sake of others who may be led (further) astray.

I'm quite sure that to St. Justin Martyr or St. Athanasius, Orthodoxy was the only thing that mattered. But that did not stop them from understanding their opponents' heretical viewpoints and then countering them for the sake of others who may be led astray by their lies.

That's why I think that comments like my professor's must be challenged. Thoughts?

In Christ,
Jordan

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of the Lord, Jordan

I did not take Razhden’s comments (nor mine) to be contrary to the thinking in your current message: “...that did not stop them from understanding their opponents' heretical viewpoints and then countering them for the sake of others who may be led astray by their lies.”
It may be that either of us seemed noncommittal on the position you state here, but that would probably be because (as I recall?) that you were not so precise in your previous message. I do not recall that you came down on the side of Orthodoxy then, and had you not spoken from our side of the fence, then Razhden’s comment would imply that there is no point in going over to that other side to argue.

But since you are NOT taking the exegetical Protestant side of “diversity” in these affairs, our previous comments ought not imply that you should necessarily avoid your position: i.e. “...at the same time, lies and heresies must be challenged for the sake of others who may be led (further) astray.” But there is no implication that you should go out of your way to attack opponents either. As it was left, I think our comments should be taken rather neutrally.

However, in this matter of, “...heretical viewpoints and then countering them”, and speaking only for myself here, not Razhden, I do not take so ambitious a stand as yours. If you are taking your stand based “on principle”, then I should not agree. In principle, I do NOT think one goes out of one’s way to attack the “opposition”. But then, I do not think in terms of “principle” -- if indeed, such is implied in your statements.

Principles are at best philosophically derived, but more often they are things derived of the moment, by which our earthly selves defend all sorts of (relatively temporary) notions using this (rather permanent sounding) concept, “principle”, to give it some backbone. Philosophically, some stalwart souls stand by certain “principles” of their choosing; they live by a few of them. But even then such things are incomplete and leave a lot of life situations undefended.

I say this for the “principle” of going after one’s opponents. And as I said, I have no such principle. Instead, I have faith that if Saint Athanasius were called to do battle, that call came from the Holy Spirit. With sufficient prayer and fasting, perhaps I may depend upon the same source of inspiration. And if it be as I pray, then the Holy Spirit will offer me direction even as He pushes me to act.

Otherwise, I should leave the “opponent” to their own devices. Perhaps, if there is any principle to be found in all this (I care not about it) it should be that one ought not engage in argument. Argument, the principle might say, is ever: Argument for its own sake.

Bless you in your studies, Jordan;
I pray that your good enthusiasms are ever directed by the Holy Spirit, and not directed through “made-with-hands” principles.

richard, who struggles to discern when it is the enemy coming upon us, with sweet smelling ways, pretending as a good spirit

[Jordan Henderson]

Once again, thank you for your comments, Richard!

I agree completely that argument should often be avoided as it is all too often "argument for its own sake." This is something I struggle with daily because I personally love a good argument! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

The reason I posted the question, however, is that in this particular case, I did not respond to the professor's bold assertion, and I feel that I should have. I probably would not have convinced him of anything, but there are many in the class (as I said) who are not even Christian, and based on some questions they have asked throughout the semester, I believe some of them are genuinely searching spiritually. (Perhaps that's why they signed up for a class on the Bible to begin with.) So for people who are genuinely searching for the Truth to hear someone they (presumably) respect say that 'Orthodox Christian doctrine was once only a competing opinion'....

About three or four years ago, when I finally began taking my faith seriously...that was about the time I went back to school and was presented with completely new challenges to my faith. As if struggling daily with sin wasn't hard enough, now I was faced with all new intellectual challenges to the Faith. It was largely through reading apologetic arguments for the True Faith that I was able to deal with these intellectual challenges. That's why I feel some of these types of assertions need to be challenged.

But again, I agree with you. Apologetics can all too easily turn into a simple attempt to win an argument, and this is something that should be avoided.

In Christ,
Jordan

[Razhden Guriadze]

Greetings in Christ!

I suggest that Romans chapter 14 is appropriate here.

ICXC,
Razhden

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Jordan, Razhden and Richard, with others,

As with many other things, I believe that the witness of the Fathers with regard to this particular topic is in some sense a stand of the middle ground. We are neither to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the views of those who would oppose the teachings of the Church, nor are we to become so enamoured with them that our minds (and thereby our hearts) rest more often in these than in the truth. We are to know our faith and love it above all else; but we are not to be wholly ignorant of the doctrine of others, especially as it touches upon and conflicts with that which we have received.

The general character of this balance is well witnessed by the Church's own worship. In the feasts and commemorations of the liturgical year, the Church proclaims primarily the truth of Christian doctrine. Yet she does not do so without reference to the errant doctrines that have been the spur for many of her clarifications of belief. On the Sundays of commemoration of the Ecumenical Councils, for example, not only is the Church's positive theology proclaimed in hymns and prayers, but the heretical teachings of some of the Church's opponants are also quoted and refuted. Without at least some level of comprehension of the heresies, the truth of the positive proclamations can be much harder to grasp.

The Lenten commemoration of St Gregory Palamas, recently passed, is another such occasion. Not only do the hymns of the day commemorate the teaching and wisdom of this Father: they also quote and describe the heresies he combatted. How many would fully appreciate St Gregory's pronouncements of the reality of the uncreated Light, if they were not at least aware that his opponants were denying the possibility of physical humanity ever beholding God?

There is a value to a certain level of comprehension of the heresies with which the Church has been faced, though just what this 'level' is, has much to do with each individual person. Here is where the role of the spiritual father is again of great importance: a good spiritual father will be able to guide his children in these matters, as other. Some people are called to dwell more on such things than are others, to their own benefit and to the benefit of the Christian community. For others, focus upon such things can be spiritually detrimental. One must approach this, as always, with prayer and guidance.

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

Matthew posted Saturday, April 06


On the Sundays of commemoration of the Ecumenical Councils, for example, not only is the Church's positive theology proclaimed in hymns and prayers, but the heretical teachings of some of the Church's opponants are also quoted and refuted. Without at least some level of comprehension of the heresies, the truth of the positive proclamations can be much harder to grasp.

Yes, Orthodoxy is truly 'meat and potatoes' meaning it needs a good digestive track. Prior to becoming Orthodox I was studying to be a minister of Calvinism. I was always ready to argue at the slightest hint of disagreement. I don't want to imply that all Calvinist were as I was, but many of us younger ones were.

Now I will engage in a conversation but have found myself at some point simply saying I will not argue the point. Sometimes I find I suddenly turn and walk away saying, "I will not argue with you about this." As a Calvinist I believed that only God could open the heart to the truth, as a Orthodox I find myself wanting to practice this conviction much more readily. I would say, "IF you have an opportunity to present a counter argument and you can do so without befudding the listners, do it." Always remember however, you are paying for an education. In your case that education is also about how the culture in which you live thinks. This is very much a part of your higher education as an Orthodox Christian.

I read Bauer's work, and would say it is useful as a tool within a narrow vein of apologetics. My copy and my notes are in storage so I would have to comment from memory [of which mine rarely operates without crutches] I have no gripe with the quotes as they stand. If however an Orthodox Professor was quoting them so as to make them appear as an authorative explanation for developing an Orthodox worldview i would GRIPE loudly.

The word "Opinion" is highly suspect in that the Orthodox "OPINION" is that the Church Fathers did not instruct us in their OPINIONS meaning from a realm of abstract speculation. Rather the Fathers gave to us in words an account of their VISION. I don't mean "perspective" as blind men feeling an elephant might convey as to what an Elephant looks like.

As to Ms. Elaine Pagels I tend to believe she is somewhat of a Gnostic herself. However, that is not to denegrate her comment with an Ad Hominem . I have debated elsewhere that the name "Christian" was applied by Rome on Orthodox and heretic alike. When the Romans killed Christians they were not inquiring into the Orthodoxy of their confession [that took place in Spain]. And the Church quite clearly does not recognize those heretics who died as "Christians" to be Christian martyrs.

This last point sometimes gets many peoples upset, sentimental sincerety must count for something. RIGHT! The threat of making use of these two authors (among others) in the classroom is that they introduce an ecumenical gnosis into the classroom to seduce the unsuspecting into some 'spiritual consciousness' which lifts them above the fray of thinking seriously about the truth of Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, these kinds of statements are usually loaded with a packed wad which as you may know is used to prevent windage. By that I mean it is meant to fill the void in the thought process of most students who are less inclined to analyse what they are being taught. But I am again reverting to the Ad Hominem only this time against the faceless mass of university students.

Which thank-fully you do not appear to be among except in body. God give you strength to endure through so much nonsense. May you have more success than I have had, which may not be saying much.

John Curtis

[John Curtis Dunn]

An education...something my spelling suggests I did not have.....

[Richard McBride]

Concerning the problem of speaking out versus observing silence,

Matthew recently wrote:
“As with many other things, I believe that the witness of the Fathers with regard to this particular topic is in some sense a stand of the middle ground. We are neither to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the views of those who would oppose the teachings of the Church, nor are we to become so enamoured with them that our minds (and thereby our hearts) rest more often in these than in the truth. We are to know our faith and love it above all else; but we are not to be wholly ignorant of the doctrine of others, especially as it touches upon and conflicts with that which we have received.”

Thus, he makes a more interesting point of two different ways; both are found in the Way of the Lord. But by positioning himself in the middle, he forces a sharper focus upon the polar events, upon the separate arguments which comprise the middle he prefers.
The problem arises when believers, such as Jordan, are confronted by the heresies which abound. Obviously, there are times when one must respond vigorously, but there are also times not to be drawn out by the demons and simply say, Get thee behind me satan! In such matters, I should try to follow the rule of the Holy Spirit. If it be He who urges action, then by all means go on the attack, for if the Lord is with thee, whom should thee fear?
But it is not quite that simple, for demons also do a lot of urging. Indeed, it may be a real horse race to decide who has the more influence in our lives -- to whom do we listen mostly? Thank God, that He also speaks with a 2x4 -- laid ungently across the back from time to time, to wake us from our demonic trance.

Also, we think about this, as we consider Matthew’s preferred stance. Both ways of serving the will of God are at times good, and at times less so. There is the way of militant advance, and there is the way of quiet retreat. Both may serve the Lord -- but it would seem he prefers Jordan’s overt way more. Consider the following examples:

Bringing up the ark of the Lord, wherein Melchol is jealous for David
II Kings VI.12-23 LXX
14 And David sounded with well-tuned instruments before the Lord, and David was clothed with a fine long robe. 15 And David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of a trumpet.

[And Melchol saw David through her window, and she despised him in her heart. Then, after completing the offerings and installing the ark in its place, and making distributions to the people, David returned to his house.]

20... And Melchol the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and saluted him, and said, How was the king of Israel glorified today, who was today uncovered in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the dancers wantonly uncovers himself! 21 And David said to Melchol, I will dance before the Lord. Blessed be the Lord who chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to make me head over his people, even over Israel. Therefore I will play and dance before the Lord. 22 And I will again uncover myself thus, and will be vile in thine eyes, and with the maid-servants by whom thou saidst that I was not had in honour. 23 And Melchol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.

Psalm 39 (40).8-10
8 I desired to do thy will, O my God, and thine law in the midst of mine heart. 9 I have preached righteousness in in the great congregation; lo! I will not refrain my lips; O Lord, thou knowest my righteousness. 10 I have not hid thy truth within my heart, and I have declared thy salvation; I have not hid thy mercy and thy truth from the great congregation.

David and his energetic ways were muchly beloved of the Lord, and his sins, which were as great as his faith, were readily forgiven -- once David came to grips with them, and offered deep repentance bathed in tears.

Still, such public display, even as these messages of ours, may not be at the urging of the Holy Spirit; and if not, then we are in error. To illustrate the opposite side of the coin from David’s public show, consider the many tracts offering coenobite silence as a better, safer way. Nikitas Stithatos (b.1020, served in Constantinople) offers this lesson from the life of Saint Arsenios:

“St. Arsenios made it a rule never to discuss things in writing and never to send letters. This was done not out of weakness or incapacity ... But it was due to his long habit of silence and his dislike for self-display. For the same reason he took great care when in church ... he would stand behind a column or some other obstruction and would hide himself from view, remaining unseen and not mixing with others.” [Philokalia vol. 4, p.197]

Then, Saint Gregory of Sinai has this to say:

“104. Nothing so fills the heart with contrition and humbles the soul as solitude embraced with self-awareness, and utter silence. And nothing so destroys the state of inner stillness and takes away the divine power that comes from it as the following six universal passions: insolence, gluttony, talkativeness, distraction, pretentiousness and the mistress of the passions, self-conceit. Whoever commits himself to these passions plunges himself progressively into darkness until he becomes completely insensate.”

Now, I know full well that few of us are coenobites, that we cannot hide behind columns all the time, and that from time to time we should speak out. But I point out, that being caught up in the world is not the excuse we might like it be. Indeed, being caught up in the world is the very reason for listening to and reading the wise works of the monks. By studying them we will come to know what is best for our own situation. And with much prayer, we will be loved and corrected when we err.

Saint Peter of Damaskos says:

“I confess Thy gifts; I do not hide Thy blessings; I proclaim Thy mercies; I acknowledge Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart, and I glorify Thy name for ever.” [Philokalia; vol. 3; p.117]

richard, who knows not when to shut up; forgive my foolishness

[Jordan Henderson]

John wrote:


The threat of making use of these two authors (among others) in the classroom is that they introduce an ecumenical gnosis into the classroom to seduce the unsuspecting into some 'spiritual consciousness' which lifts them above the fray of thinking seriously about the truth of Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, these kinds of statements are usually loaded with a packed wad which as you may know is used to prevent windage. By that I mean it is meant to fill the void in the thought process of most students who are less inclined to analyse what they are being taught.

I couldn't have said it better myself! To make things worse, there is no 'Religion' or 'Theology' department at my college, so this course is being taught as an English course. Most of the class doesn't have a clue whether what my prof. says is true or not, and seem to accept his dogmatic statements as scientifically proven facts. That's why I wished I had said something. But, on the other hand, one must pick and choose one's battles. One is not put in the best position when arguing with their professor. I personally hate it when I have people in my class who constantly feel the need to challenge everything the professor says. However, if what they say is vastly oversimplified or just plain wrong.....

This has really evolved into an interesting discussion! Originating with a simple question about the Bauer hypothesis, it has evolved into a discussion about the nature of apologetics within the Orthodox Tradition. Some wonderful insights have been offered. I agree with Matthew that there must be a balance.

I really enjoyed reading that last post, Richard. It seems the conclusion we have come to is in the spirit of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." When confronted with heresy, there is a time for argument and confrontation and a time for withdrawal and silence. Would you agree?

In Christ,
Jordan

[Richard McBride]

Beloved of the Lord, Jordan,

that seems a good way to think of it:
“Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”
The nature of your predicament holds within it a lesson for us all. And I agree with you, that John has expressed it admirably, if on the offensive side. When John says, in your quote: “The threat ... is that they introduce an ecumenical gnosis into the classroom to seduce the unsuspecting ...”, John opens up one of two types of argument. In his case, the presumption is of an intended or purposeful seduction -- the sort which we may be sure that the enemy constantly uses. But the instruments of the enemy’s purpose, in this case the teacher, may be blind to such purposes and perfectly well intended. It is this sort of hidden agenda which makes the new age blindness so lethal.

The other type of argument implied in John’s statement is a more benign approach. It is more discursive, more open to ramifications, and above all, it is less likely to close the door on each person’s willingness to hear and learn from the other. This would be the ideal of new age niceness, so, could it be exploited?

In you case, Jordan (which again, should be a lesson for all of us, as we often sit too quietly when the Holy Spirit may be urging us to action), it may well be that the Holy Spirit, through your guardian angel, etc., was nudging you to act in the first instance. After all, your explanation of the class situation makes it a prime incubator for those good-feeling but heretical new age sentiments.
Then too, it may be that you really were not prepared to act at that time, that you were needing reinforcement and contemplation, above all, time to pray, seeking guidance.
If that were the case, then you are now not only better prepared to receive the nudges of the Holy Spirit but you have considerably more purpose with which to act.

Then, there is also the point of John’s comment. Is it more important in this case that you jump on the issue with all four feet, combatively, with a no holds barred approach? That often becomes the issue in a class situation of spontaneous speaking. Or, would it be better to test the water first? Perhaps, rather than confronting the teacher in public -- a teacher who, from your description, is not well prepared to discuss the matter intelligently -- perhaps, it be better to question him/her afterward, quietly. Learn their position, their strengths and weaknesses. In a quiet situation like this you be far more effective in getting across your point, and it is possible that the teacher would welcome your input. Who knows?

Well, the Holy Spirit knows, and the enemy knows. So I guess the first lesson here for me, is to pray and fast, seeking constantly the very important Grace of Discernment. Armed with that Grace, we may be much better instruments of the Lord, warriors with Archangel Michael, not impediments. Discernment, you might say, is the special forces arm of Michael’s brigade.

Jordan, when I compare my own misspent undergraduate years with your mature perception of this field of battle, I become ashamed of my inattentiveness and laziness. I think I try to make up for it a little in reading your posts. In any event, I truly praise the Lord and thank Him for the expansion of His Church, which has made such perceptions as you posses possible.

But don’t take any Grace for granted. Above all, do not become proud of your accomplishments. Simply be thankful, and with tears pray that, unworthy as you are, you be allowed to receive these special Graces evermore.

Forgive me for preaching. The didactic urges of an old teacher may not always be triggered and nudged by the Holy Spirit, so please pray for my own discernment.

The end of the Prayer to the Lord Jesus Crucified
“I adore Thy purest Passion, and most lovingly kissing Thy wounds, I cry:
Have mercy on me a sinner, and cause that Thy holy Cross may not be fruitless in me,
that I may participate here with faith in Thy sufferings and be vouchsafed to behold also They Kingdom in Heaven.
Amen

Akathist to Our Sweetest Lord Jesus Christ
Monochos
wysiwyg://64/http://www.monochos.net/other/Akathist_to_Christ.html

[John Curtis Dunn]

Jordan Henderson Posted on Tuesday, April 09, 2002


"To make things worse, there is no 'Religion' or 'Theology' department at my college, so this course is being taught as an English course. Most of the class doesn't have a clue whether what my prof. says is true or not, and seem to accept his dogmatic statements as scientifically proven facts."

After reading the above statement I had to return to your original post.


"Today in my 'Bible as Literature' class, my professor said to the class, "I want you to write the following statement down, and never forget it: 'Orthodox Christian doctrine was once only a competing opinion'."

What was the context of his statement, and was he actually stating 'Orthodox Christian doctrine' or could he have meant 'orthodox Christian doctrine'. There would be a difference, since he might have been referring specifically to those doctrines which are specifically of a 'Western post Augustine' development. The veracity of the statement would not improve but the offense could be perceived as less of a direct assault upon the Orthodox Church.

One of the thesis of Bauer's was that heresy preceded orthodoxy. Orthodoxy then emerges out of political struggle and begins to persecute heresy to further establish itself against its predecessors. Bauer's thesis must be set within the context of his relationship to Adolf Harnack who was never sympathetic towards 'Ecclesisatical Christiantiy' (which is often what is meant by Harnack and Bauer by orthodoxy). Both must be characterized as 'Liberal Protestants.' Bauer often, following Harnacks example, asserted unknowns as absolutes which he then built his revisionist history of the Church upon. This as I seem to recall was very much the main theme of his Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.

John Curtis

[Jordan Henderson]

Richard writes:


Then too, it may be that you really were not prepared to act at that time, that you were needing reinforcement and contemplation, above all, time to pray, seeking guidance.

If that were the case, then you are now not only better prepared to receive the nudges of the Holy Spirit but you have considerably more purpose with which to act.....Perhaps, rather than confronting the teacher in public -- a teacher who, from your description, is not well prepared to discuss the matter intelligently -- perhaps, it be better to question him/her afterward, quietly. Learn their position, their strengths and weaknesses. In a quiet situation like this you be far more effective in getting across your point, and it is possible that the teacher would welcome your input. Who knows?

I agree. I'm actually thinking about just writing my professor a (long) letter after the semester is over. I think that would be more productive, and it wouldn't seem like I'm trying to 'one-up' my professor or show off for the class.


Above all, do not become proud of your accomplishments.

Please pray for me in this regard. Pride is a sin I struggle with perhaps more than any other--and it is a sin that one is particularly vulnerable to when engaging in apologetic arguments.


Forgive me for preaching. The didactic urges of an old teacher may not always be triggered and nudged by the Holy Spirit, so please pray for my own discernment.

Your 'preaching' is most welcome. Thank you.

In Christ,
Jordan

[Jordan Henderson]

John,


"To make things worse, there is no 'Religion' or 'Theology' department at my college, so this course is being taught as an English course. Most of the class doesn't have a clue whether what my prof. says is true or not, and seem to accept his dogmatic statements as scientifically proven facts."

After reading the above statement I had to return to your original post.

Actually, I was not only referring to that statement, but to many that have been made throughout the semester. For instance, he accepts uncritically the findings of the Jesus Seminar with regard to the 'authentic/inauthentic' sayings of Jesus. And he does not present these 'findings' in an honest manner. He does not say, "Some scholars have come to doubt the authenticity of many of Jesus' sayings." He rather says, "Scholars have determined that Jesus actually only spoke less than 20% of the sayings attributed to Him in the Gospels." This, no doubt, sounds familiar if you are familiar with the writings of the Jesus Seminar. And to those students who are unfamiliar with modern biblical studies, this seems to be the final word on the matter. And when anyone challenges him on these types of issues, he says something like, "Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you like. I mean, you can't tell these fundamentalists anything!"

There are other issues discussed in class that do not necessarily challenge Orthodox Christianity, but which should simply be more open to discussion. For instance, the dates of the Gospels. He gave the class a precise date for each of the Gospels (Mark-70, Matthew-80, Luke-90, John-96), as if these dates were well-established. Now his dating of the Gospels poses no problem (necessarily) to the claims of Christianity; nevertheless, there is much scholarly discussion today about these dates. He should have opened this up to criticism and stimulated discussion in the class.


What was the context of his statement, and was he actually stating 'Orthodox Christian doctrine' or could he have meant 'orthodox Christian doctrine'.

He definitely meant "small-o" orthodox. IOW, he was not making a direct attack on the Orthodox Church. However, after making the statement, he illustrated his point by giving a one-sided discussion of St. Athanasius' debate with Arius. Of course, he was simpathetic to Arius, and gave the impression that he was persecuted by the Church simply because St. Athanasius 'won the debate.' He summarized Arius' points, but completely brushed off St. Athanasius' counter-points. A student even asked, "How did St. Athanasius respond to Arius' arguments?" He responded, "Look, I mean, you can twist the Scripture to mean whatever you like," as if that in any way answered the student's question.

The point came up again in class today, and he quoted John 20:17: "...I am ascending...to my God and your God." "How can Jesus ascend to God if He is God?" he asked. "You see, this is one of the points Arius tried to bring up, but he was branded a heretic and his question was left unanswered." As if St. Athanasius just sat there sucking his thumb while Arius brought up all these challenges.

As I told Richard, I'm thinking about writing my prof. a long letter after the semester challenging some of these points and encouraging him to open these questions up to more criticism and discussion in the future, rather than challenging him in front of the class. Do you think that would be a good idea?

In Christ,
Jordan

[Owen Jones]

Dear Jordan,

The professor in question does not understand that theology is not something cooked up in a pressure cooker. It is decided by the Church for pastoral reasons. The consequences of false belief are certain distortions of consciousness and of behavior that affect our lives negatively, both in this life and in the next. Theology always has to pass a pastoral test. Also, true or right theology is the consequence of certain ascetical exercises that are in accord with longstanding practice. We can observe and experience and come to certain conclusions as to the effect on the mind and the senses of certain ascetical practices as opposed to other, distorted, or gnostic practices. So theology cannot be extracted from life, unlike your professor's theory which treats it in terms of independently existing ideas.

[Clark]

Owen wrote:


Theology always has to pass a pastoral test.

What? There are all kinds of situations and circumstances when proper theology is not the most pastoral.

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps you are using a modern, liberal definition of pastoral as: let's not hurt anyone's feelings or offend anyone. But all theology has a practical, pastoral purpose -- to lead to the cure of the soul. This is the decisive reasoning behind theological principles. The reason heresies are heresies is that they inevitably lead the soul astray and hence they do not serve the right pastoral function.

[Richard Domina]

Owen states: "true or right theology is the consequence of certain ascetical exercises that are in accord with longstanding practice." I don't think Mary Magdeline or the thief on the cross or any of the other people who were saved in the Gospels, including the Apostles, were practicing ascetics of longstanding tradition. Jesus said "unless you become as one of these children you will not enter the Kingdom>"

[Owen Jones]

Richard,

I'm puzzled by your comment. I'm not sure of the point. Christian theology didn't exist at that point, other than typologically of course. Are you concerned about Christian asceticism being misinterpreted as a form of works righteousness? I would argue that Mary Magdaline and the thief on the cross are models of Christian asceticism. Also, while Christ did not come to change the law one jot or tittle, he made all things new. Hence we even measure time as before Christ and after Christ. There are many Biblical personalities who become models of Christian asceticism later, because their lives and their witness are re-interpreted by the Church in light of this changed perspective we have been given. The fact that they turned from their sinful ways and followed Christ is the key, of course. Which is what we are supposed to do. Asceticism does not deny the reality of our sinful ways. But theology is not an abstraction. Christian theology simply does not develop apart from an asceticism that is far more extreme than what we are willing to practice today.

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of Christian asceticism as an abstract perfectionism.

Owen Jones

[Nikolaj]

Dear Jordan


"'Orthodox Christian doctrine was once only a competing opinion'."

Eh? ....competing with.....what?
Roman paganism?

IC XC
NI KA
Nikolaj

[Richard Domina]

Thanks for the response Owen. You wrote;"Christian theology simply does not develope apart from an asceticism that is far more extreme than what we are willing to practice today." If you mean by Christian theology -understanding - than I agree, but if you mean dogmatic or doctrinal points than I think you have it backwards. Asceticism may lead us to a deeper participation in or understanding of the Theology presented in the Gospels. Everything goes,(and has gone),wrong when we earth brains try to 'develope' theology. We humans have been creating God in our image since Adam. The Jews knew 'about' God. They believed in the One God. They knew the 'what' of Theology. Christianity is a radical revelation to the human race on the HOW of God. It's not what we think that is so debilitating- it's HOW we think that is all wrong. The Gospels rectify and re-orient the believer in the HOW. All that is needed is what is stated in the Gospels- Faith in the Only begotten Son of God and obeying the commandments. If we really want to we will and when we fall we get up and start again. What other choice is there? I'm rambling- thanks for your patience. Rick

[Owen Jones]

Yours is a fairly protestantish approach to the Gospel. If all we needed was faith then how wonderful and simple a world it would be with no disagreement! But the Orthodox view of the Gospel is far different from yours. It requires a transformation first. We must, through asceticial practice, become purified so that our senses become transformed and we can "see" the Gospel truth as it is, see Creation as it truly is, and so on. This is the radical distinction between Orthodoxy and a "faith alone" doctrine. This is the true, hidden meaning of Pentacost.

That doesn't mean that nothing whatsoever can be gleaned from Holy Scripture just from picking it up and reading it. But most people will likely glean a surface, moral meaning, and the true, hidden theological meaning will be obscured. It is, afterall, the Book of the Church, and the Church intends for it be seen with open eyes, with the scales over them having fallen away, and the Church specifically prescribes the kind of treatment we need that is a requirement or pre-requisite for Biblical and theological knowledge. Today people "study" the Bible and "study" theology and this would be quite an abomination to people in the early Church.

It is not unlike St. Paul's warning against receiving communion without proper preparation first. Some have taken ill and some have even died.

[Richard McBride]

Posted on Wednesday, 20 November, 2002

Very nicely put, Seraphim.
I should be so succinct, yet pithy.
I should, but can't.

[Richard Domina]

Dear Owen, I never said 'all we needed was faith',I said faith AND obeying the commandments. I can assure you that if we truly obeyed the commandments there would be more than enough disagreements in the world. The world neither has faith or obeys the commandments.(I'm surprised at your comment about 'a wonderful and simple world'.) "It requires a transformation first.We must,through ascetical...and so on." This is backwards. What led the monk to the monastary? For that matter, what led Christianity to the desert? There were plenty of authentic, Christ-bearing Christians in the first and second century gathering regularly and living in the world,(having real faith and following the commandments). Then came Constantine and all the hair-splitting to give the people a palatable religion. This is why monasticism began. Because, like me, these Christians saw a lot of smoke filling the church. Again, I never said "faith alone". Sometimes we read these post and see what we want to see with knee-jerk reactions. You said,"But most people will likely glean a surface moral meaning..."- Yes, and they would never think of ascetics for that reason. The ones who practice this inner discipline are the ones who HAVE gleaned the real meaning through READING the Scriptures. You can lead a Christian to Water(through ascetical practice)but you can't make him drink (unless he is thirsty for the hidden Word, which has ALREADY infected him by reading). I need to stop now. Thank you for your reply. In His Peace, Rick p.s. What is causing what? Where does something begin?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

Sorry for the misquote. I'm still not quite sure I understand your point. Monasticism developed in order to continue the traditions of asceticism already firmly established. In the liturgy, newcomers to the Church could not stay for the sermon, let alone the eucharist, without first undergoing a fairly severe ascesis. The Church understood that they could not understand the hidden theological meaning of Scripture without first undergoing a transformation. Now, you might argue that it was picking up Scripture in the first place that led them to the Church. But that was rarely the case. Holy Scripture was not widely disseminated (no printing presses!!!). Not many people could read. And the Church made a point of keeping much of what it said and did hidden. Not just because of persecution but because it cheapens it to broadcast it like we do today.

Since I believe the early church practice is normative, which one may argue with I suppose, I think I'm on fairly firm ground in saying that ascesis, severe ascesis, is a precondition to true theology. No one in the early Church would presume to theologise or to listen to a theologian speak apart from a very rigorous ascetical discipline that we today would define as cruel and unusual punishment.

Yet there is something very natural about asceticism. And since the Church has forgotten about it, or rejected it outright, people go searching for it elsewhere, in extreme sports (I like ocean sailing but it gets expensive), by joining the Special Forces, or by going on gnostic diets, or punishing the body and humiliating the personality through sado-masochism.

Until we rediscover the link between asceticism and theology, the Church is lost, and we are kidding ourselves when we think we actually know theology.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard, Richard, Owen, Nikolaj and others,

The debate between the notions of 'right action leads to right belief' and 'right belief leads to right action' is longstanding; and even though most groups will agree that neither is independently correct and that reality is a commingling of the two, still there is a good deal of variation in interpretation between various Christian churches (as this thread demonstrates).

I might recommend the story of St Anthony's calling to the monastic life (http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/antony_spirituality.shtml) as a fairly normative model for the Orthodox understanding of this issue. Anthony was not a 'scripturally educated' man when he departed upon his life of severe asceticism. All that we can really say about him in this regard is that he attended his local church after the custom of his parents -- and even here, it would seem that he, like many Orthodox to follow, would arrive late! However, he did listen.

Athanasius' picture of Anthony paints him as one who heard the Scriptures in the temple and loved them, and at least partially understood them. But no one in the whole of the patristic tradition would assert that, at the stage of his life when he discerned his call to the desert, he had a replete knowledge of the Gospel. But what he did have was an immanent reception of it: he heard the words and followed.

Anthony heard Christ in the Scriptures, calling him to 'sell all that thou hast ... and come and follow me'. This Anthony did, and for the rest of his life. His was a severity and intensity of ascesis that few could equal -- though monastics ever since have attempted to do so. And as the Life (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-antony.html) by Athanasius makes clear, it was only after twenty-some years of such endeavour, that Anthony was gifted with true understanding of the Gospel, of God and of man, and was able to work to the greater good of God's glory. It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that Anthony's true theology is an outgrowth of his ascesis.

This is the general manner in which the Church understands the relationship of the two. Scripture and the teachings of the Church cannot be fully or wholly comprehended without the rich struggle of the ascetic endeavour which purifies the human heart into a state receptive of God's truth. But the spur which prompts man into such a course of asceticism is often (most often) this same Scripture and tradition. Man hears the Scripture and is drawn into a life of asceticism, through which he may truly know the meaning of the truths those texts contain.

Theology and ascesis are inseperable in Orthodox belief.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Owen,Matthew and all, I am not trying to beat a dead horse. I'm trying to convey a hidden principle. As regards this asceticism stuff I take your position to be point A leads to point B. What I am saying is point A, as being infected with the Living Word,leads to point A2. I have not read all that is to be read but in reading the N.T.epistles,the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch,Mathetes to Diognetus,Barnabas,Clement of Rome, and Clement of Alexandria- all of which is pre-Antony of the desert, there is no hint anywhere of severe ascesis. What is referred to over and over is common sense-in the world-Christianity,(fasting from the world as much as possible,patient endurance,brotherly love,avoiding schism,growing in faith, obeying commandments,...). This is what any of us can do. One does not need to live in a desert or kneel on a pillar for years on end to know theology. This is much more the fruit of John the Baptist than of Jesus and his Apostles. I'm not saying the theology gleaned from monasticism is wrong I'm saying the whole concept of such an extreme is already fundamentaly unChristian. i'm sorry for the bulky paragraph but I still have'nt figured out this formatting stuff. Thanks, Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

If your point were to be taken in extraction, it may stand. But what you seem to be neglecting, in this reading, is the fact that 'severe ascesis' was so part-and-parcel with the life of earliest Christianity, that it was an assumed rather than exhorted part of the Christian life. Owen mentioned this, if I recall, in one of his earlier posts; but it bears repeating since it is often overlooked and of essential importance.

The reason that asceticism as a distinguishable entity or specific aspect of religious life only begins to be poignantly commended around the fourth century, is that it was at this same stage (following the Peace of the Church) that it became possible to be a Christian --at least nominally-- without being ascetic. Prior to the Peace, the very fact of being Christian meant that a certain manner of ascesis was assumed and naturally required: it was a hard and severe life, to be a Christian in the first centuries of the Church, and this 'hard life' was not simply a side-effect of persecution, but was an actively sought-after aspect of the Christian way.

Ascesis may not have had a hard-and-fast set of regula by which it was characterised, but the notions of fasting, penance, self-deprecation, labour and forced self-control --in short, all the things that form what later would be 'formalised' into the specific notion of ascesis-- were all present and demanded in the earliest Church. What we find in the fourth century, when a discernable emphasis upon 'ascesis proper' comes about, is not the addition of a new element into the Christian life: rather, we see members of the Church lamenting that this aspect, which for so long had been inherent, assumed and required, was suddenly found lacking due to the royal popularity of Christianity. If you read carefully the texts of the Fathers from this era, you will note that the entire drive toward 'institutionalised asceticism' (via monasticism, etc) was an attempt to recapture the ascetic life of the Church which was viewed as being lost in the new era of Christian peace and popularity. Similarly, if you 'read between the lines' of such writers as Ignatius of Antioch, Mathetes, Polycarp, etc, you will find that the lives they were living as Christians were replete with inherent forms of asceticism that, in many cases, were far more drastic than the pillar-dwellers or anchorites of later centuries.

We may continue to discuss and mull over the relationship between action and faith; but as a matter of historical accuracy, it is simply not possible to say that ascesis 'entered into' Christianity at some later date. It has been present in the Church since the moment Christ went out to fast in the desert; and was predicted long before that in John's ascesis, as well as that of the prophets of the Old Covenant.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Dear Matthew, I am in full agreement,100%,with what you say- in fact - this is what I said in my first post on this topic,(although clumsily and with far less elegance). I say they go hand in hand,like a circle- not a preparitory gesture- like a line segment. I realise ascesis was always present but not'severe'. Wasn't Constantine around the fourth century? Thank you for your input. Rick

[Jeremiah Stephen Davis]

Dear Richard,
It is not correct to say that the ascesis present in the earliest centuries was not as "severe" as that of later centuries. Rather, as Matthew has pointed out, it didn't, by and large, exist in an institutionalized setting.

You began this thread with the comment:

"I don't think Mary Magdeline or the thief on the cross or any of the other people who were saved in the Gospels, including the Apostles, were practicing ascetics of longstanding tradition."

Perhaps you intend to indicate that there was no institutional or otherwise formal structure in the ascetic practice of those mentioned. This is true. However, as Owen has said, these people are in fact examples of the very heart of Orthodox Christian ascesis. Ultimately, what is true ascesis but the return to the natural order of creation, a correct hierarchy in which the body is under, and yet one with, the soul and spirit? Is this not the ultimate goal of all asceticism, the glorification of the flesh through a return to the original plan of creation?

The thief on the cross, I think, is exceptional in a number of ways. While we can and do imitate his confession as Orthodox Christians, what we know of him gives few clues to the way in which a Christian who survives more than a day or so after his conversion should continue to live a Christian life. In the case of figures such as the Apostle to the Apostles, St. Mary Magdeline, we know more, as more is recorded of her. However, we do not and should not expect to find in the Gospels a full explanation of her manner of living after her conversion. As Matthew has said, ascesis as such was often not individually emphasized as a dimension of Christian living until the point that it became possible to separate ascetic living from Christian living in general. For Christians living in an environment where they were to one degree or another a persecuted minority, in danger of dying for their faith, and who remembered the emphasis placed on the station of the "poor," such a separation was unthinkable.

Thus it is not surprising that we find an example of "severe" bodily ascesis even in the writings of St. Paul the Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 9:

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Actually, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection," could be more literally rendered: "I bruise ('press under'- used to refer to the giving of a black eye) and enslave my body." This is clearly ascetic terminology. Other examples could be given, of course. The New Testament and some of the earliest extra-biblical Christian writings mention the importance of fasting, for instance.

We must not forget that Orthodox Christianity is far more than external structures and particular forms. At its heart it is the complete way of living in Christ. So it was in the days of the early Church. It may not resemble, in certain outward forms, later Orthodox Christian monastic practice, but both preserve an essential component of the process of theosis: the sanctification of the whole man.

In Xp,
Jeremiah Davis

[Alguente Mira]

What, in heaven's name, is "non-severe" ascesis??? Certainly this is a farce???

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

I would differ inasmuch as I do not think the ascesis of the early Church can in any way be described as less 'severe' than that to be found in later centuries. Truth be told, it was actually far more severe in many ways -- though perhaps with less-frequent instances of what modern mindsets might consider 'odd' variations (dendrites, pillar-dwellers, and so forth).

In a larger sense, though, we might question whether there can really be any such thing as a genuine ascesis that is not, by it's nature, 'severe'. If it's not severe to body and soul, it's probably not ascesis.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Jeremiah,Alguente and Matthew, Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I would like to briefly comment to all of you. Jeremiah, I guess it all boils down to what one deems 'severe' to be,but as you have pointed out;25:And every man that striveth for the mastery is TEMPORATE in ALL things. Alguente,non-svere ascesis,in heaven's name, would be; struggling to be temporate in all things,going against lower impulses as they arise,especially the impulse to make idols out of the method rather than living moment by moment in Acknowledging the Living God through actively obeying the commandments and loving our brothers. (I would not call this severe but if you asked me to do this fifteen years ago I might think it was.) Matthew, I,once again, agree with you. Why use the word 'severe' at all? It is a bit redundant. Sometimes I wonder if we give ourselves excuses for not obeying the commandments and living in deep faith because to do it right requires all these 'optimal' circumstances. If we had faith we would see that our situation is as He has deemed it to be. If Matthew was in some monastary somewhere growing a beard than this incredible,vibrant forum would not be honing and refining our faith. Peace, Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a recent post, it was said:


I guess it all boils down to what one deems 'severe' to be,but as you have pointed out;25:And every man that striveth for the mastery is TEMPORATE in ALL things. Alguente,non-svere ascesis,in heaven's name, would be; struggling to be temporate in all things,going against lower impulses as they arise,especially the impulse to make idols out of the method rather than living moment by moment in Acknowledging the Living God through actively obeying the commandments and loving our brothers.

This is an interesting comment. Moderation is, indeed, the manner of life towards which we work. But the fact of centuries of experience is that moderation must be attained to by force; our bodies and souls are far too mastered by the state of our passions and our adherence to sin to be simply 'converted' to living in moderation. When we try this, if we try it, we find that our own selves battle against us in this desire for moderation: where we desire to be moderate in food, the body demands satiety; where we desire to be moderate in speech, the mind riles against us with angered thoughts. Even where we desire to moderate our excessive time of leisure with increased focus on prayer, our bodies and souls together strike at us with fatigue, boredom, accedie.

The only way that we can attain to the moderation for which we strive is to do battle against the broken within us, that through the grace of God we can overcome the fallen habits which we have made our norms, and be refashioned into the type of human beings God intends for us to be. And this kind of battle is always 'severe', it is always painful, it is always a sacrifice.


Why use the word 'severe' at all?

Perhaps because it is a touchstone for the seriousness with which we take our efforts at striving for the moderation of which you speak. It is not sufficient 'almost' to overcome evil, even the evil in us; we must defeat it. If we are not being severe in the treatment of our ailments, then the chances are we do not fully realise the extent of our illness.


Sometimes I wonder if we give ourselves excuses for not obeying the commandments and living in deep faith because to do it right requires all these 'optimal' circumstances. If we had faith we would see that our situation is as He has deemed it to be.

Certainly we often do. But this is always our own mistake - a product of our own misconceptions. There are no more 'optimal' circumstances for the taking up of ascesis than those in which we find ourselves at our present moment. We may find, as we go through life, that we are called to different environments that foster and support this endeavour within us (thus marriage, monasticism, etc). But ascesis, and yes, severe ascesis, is something to which all are called in every situation.

Thus, for example, the fast of Great Lent (which is certainly 'severe ascesis' if one follows it faithfully) is exhorted of all, whether in monasteries or in parishes, in deserts or in cities. The fast before the Nativity, upon which the Church is soon beginning, is similar.


If Matthew was in some monastary somewhere growing a beard than this incredible,vibrant forum would not be honing and refining our faith.

Such unfounded assumptions, dear Richard. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

I continue to find nourishment here. Thank you. "moderation must be attained to by force". Our government is sure that war is the way to peace. They are mistaken. Force is not the way to love- this is rape. All of life is operating according to certain laws operating in certain modes. One of the ways to say this is that we reap what we sow, or cast your bread upon the waters... Force begets force. Moderation begets moderation. "Do figs grow from thistles or grapes from thorns?" We are human and are trapped in the chain of human-ness. The Jews would not receive Jesus because His credentials weren't what they were expecting (sensible proof be it ascetic like John the B. or some kind of King). We, by Faith(not slogan faith but moment by moment investment in the reality of the Son of God living in me), we are taken out of the human stream and adopted into the Living Stream. To say it another way is that we can push the car or we can use the Keys that Jesus died to give us and drive away. I realize that this sounds prostestantish - I'm saying it's not. I'm speaking about a Living Relationship-not some kind of positive thinking. I'm sorry I'm not clear. My greatest prayer is that you get the gist of my message. Peace to you, Rick

[Owen Jones]

Rick,

God frequently gets his way by force. Remember the plagues? Jesus said, "compel them to come in." Before he knew it to be time for his crucifixion, he surrounded himself with armed body guards to protect him.

I think we often confuse the freedom of the Gospel with post 18th Century Enlightenment liberalism. They are not the same. The idea that there can be a world with no force is a gnostic fantasy.

Now, part of the problem is semantic literalism. The word force has come to be identified with jack-booted thugs. But if I'm trying to loosen a rusted bolt and it won't give, I have to apply more force. I have to make sure that the force I apply will be sufficient to twist it off but there is always a risk of breaking it in the process.

Regarding the passions, we must force the body to surrrender by depriving it of its habitual desire for pleasure. The Church, traditionally, offers a severe prescription for us that it has demonstrated is necessary. It's simply not sufficient to pray about our sins. Some force needs to be applied. Not unlike the surgeons knife who creates a serious wound in the body in order to cut out a more serious cancer. Would that all cancers were healed by love and prayer, but we know from experience that it is prudent to treat it "agressively" by applying "force" to the body.

The severe doctrines in the Gospel are anathema to modern liberal man, however, who wishes to minimize, even deny the true nature of sin and its grasp over the body.

Now, to be sure, all this is pretty much theory on my part since I am no great shakes as an ascetic. But I'm not a nuclear physicist either but I can at least understand and appreciate in principle what has to go into producing a nuclear reaction. To produce nuclear energy you've got to blow something up.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

Regarding moderation begetting moderation: this assumes a level of health and well-being that is emphatically not assumed (in fact it is strongly denied) in the Christian struggle of the individual.

An analogy: Only someone who is healthy and well can decide, 'I shall henceforth be moderate in drink', and then be so. Were we all spiritually healthy and in control of our passions, then we might be able to approach the control of our own lives in this same way -- and, indeed, the evidence of many holy lives in the history of the Church is witness that purified humanity can, indeed, attain such a state.

But when we examine our own selves, we find our state to be much more analogous to that of the severe alcoholic. It simply does not suffice for us to say, 'I shall henceforth be moderate in drink' -- or sins, or speech, or activity. This is a false, delusional attitude.

One must 'tackle the bull by the horns'. Christ said that the Kingdom of God belongs to those who take it by force -- and this is precisely what must be done.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Owen and Matthew, Thank you for your crystal clear analogies. I will take it all in. God's goodness never stops. Peace to you, Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard et al.,

Given the recent focus of this thread, it strikes me that the contents of an article online here might be of interest, if you've not already read it. Newman Nahas' text, The Origins and Motivations of Monasticism (http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/monastic_beginnings.shtml), deals with the rise of some of the more 'severe' and 'strange' ascetic enterprises in the early monastic movement. You might find its contents relevant to the present discussion.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Matthew, Thank you for the referance reading. I'm sure it will help. undersubrichard

[Moses Anthony]

Matthew, Owen, Richard;

I was giving thought to this thread earlier; and in reading the posts, some of what I've had in mind has been presented.

In all the reading I've done on the history of the Orthodox Church, one thing stands out about the monastic movement. Although believed to have been started by St.Anthony of Egypt, in actuality there were others who preceeded Anthony to the desert. Suffice it to say though none of them seem to have as much aclaim as St.Anthony.

The rigors of the ascetic/monastic life arose for, and in response to, the lack of piety in the liturgical life of the Church. The loudness -the force- of their endevors eventually led the heirarchs of the Church to embrace monasticism. And so, there gradually came into existence the various forms and rules for the ascetic life.

Was there ever a regulated form of ascesis prior to the Early Church, YES (as Matthew has said). I thought of Nazarite vows, I thought of the Esscenes, those contemporaries of John the Forerunner whose ascesis was extreme.

The Church grows the best in times of struggle; that need not be a time of persecution!

the unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

There were several things afoot in the development of desert spirituality, so to speak. One was the declining standards in the Church, as it become socially popular to be in Church and wealthy people and socially prominent people joined the Church in large numbers. People wanted for themselves what they knew they could not find in a parish. But there was also the belief that the demons hung out in the desert and therefore the ascetics believed they were a kind of front line combat unit at war with the demons. There was also the problem with Bishops. Many were fed up with the kind of social/political posturing of Bishops and wanted to be as far away from them as possible. Many also rejected much of the Greek tendency to intellectualize theology. When Evagrius went to study the wisdom of the ascetics (many of whom were illiterates) they teased him by calling him a Greek and addressing him as a bishop.

So there was no single reason for the "movement." I read somewhere that when the Muslims took over the Middle East, the slaughtered 500,000 monks who were living in the desert.

[Richard McBride]

The slaughter of monastics was mostly of the Copts; the huge number of Coptic monks must be guessed from the Moslim census taken in Egypt, somewhere around 1000. Already Islam had slughtered so many of the peace loving and unprotesting Copts that after two centuries of hard work, the census report stated pridefully that only 6 million Copts were then left.

basement dwelling richard