Demons of revolt: the spirit of change in monastic traditions

[Richard McBride]

De 21.18-21 (RSV)
“This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

That is how the OT dealt with those in their midst who possessed the urge to rebell. Today we recognize it as either an honorable trait, or at least a tollerable one.

Moving from “rebell” to “revolt”, it makes me wonder how “revolt” ever came to mean a disruption of the existing order? Since the word comes from a much older meaning, “revolution”, one might think that “revolt” should mean to simply return to the same place. As it is, “revolution” has come to possess two contrary meanings. It is both (1) A pivoting about an axle (one revolution), and (2) A total disruption of the old form (a destruction of existing oscillations).

At the time John Locke used the term, in the disruptive sense (c.1700), it was a fairly well established meaning -- but not in Locke’s new sense. He was proposing revolution as a legitimate act of the people against their government. It was as a redress of governmental fallibility. And this was a fairly new thing. I see Locke’s use of this term to be the formal institution of the Modern Era.

When one researches the qualities which make up that which we call, Modernism, or the Modern Era, a curious notion comes to light. Given the typical but more concrete qualities: “secular society, the free market, constitutional democracy, civil rights, nationalism, beaucratic administration, industrialization, capitalism, science and technology, progress”; or seeking more abstract qualities: “rationalization, integration, self-assertion, individualism, etc.” -- given these types of issues which always surface as qualities composing Modernism (this list comes from the very perceptive book, “Postmodern Sophistications” by David Kolb), we find a curious note. The long list, starting from Locke and his denial of the Church (Clear away all that brick-a-brack on the altar; he says, What good is it? And clear away the altar too. We might keep baptism, for after all, that could be the only bath the child ever gets.) -- the long list shows a plethora of issues which disturbed those who tend to be disturbed. But any one list does not survive long. There is a curiosity about the issues of Modernism which causes its advocates to reach a point where one set of revolutionaries turns upon another (the Red and the White armies of Russia after 1917, as a single instance). There is a point where one set cannibalizes the other, where a once hallowed percept suddenly becomes destroyed as the revolution turns upon itself. It is, perhaps, an ironic instance of both meanings of “revolution” coming back together?

This is the only persistent quality I find in Modernism. It is the quality of Revolution. That rule persists because it may still be revolution when revolutionaries turn and destroy themselves. Thus, Stalin in his machinations was being perfectly faithful to Modernism -- if to nothing else. This totally irrational form of Rationalism has become the coin of the day among especially modernists who despise Modernism: Foucault, Derrida, Adornao, etc. It is perfectly in tune with all that we know and remember of the 20thC.

Being a creature of Modernism myself, I tend to recall these things as I read Seraphim’s wise council to return to the monasteries. For him, it is the only way to preserve the Spirit of Orthodoxy and to continue to install it in the growing list of new Orthodox Churches. That may be. Howver, I learned this ineffable sense of Orthodoxy from the Yia Yias (the Matushkas). But of course, they are dyeing off. May their memories be eternal!

But too, I am still blessed to be learning of this ineffable Spirit of Orthodoxy from those who had lived it in the old countries. Unhappily, they too are evaporating. And when I compare the new churches of White Bread congregations with those possessing a large percentage of dark skins from Lebanon and Palestine, there is a difference in Spirit -- as I am able to perceive it. I have seen no people as beautifully sweet as those (in America) from Lebanon.

Contrarily, I know it is merely anecdotal, but the modernizers I come across, the ones with the revolutionary demon of change burning in their veins, so many of them seem to be Greek. But of course, that is unfair. We all know far too many of them of all nationalitieis. Either way, they are thoroughly modern. They are driven to wreak change upon the Church. They cannot stand still until they see autocephally bestowed. Then, of course, it is their lot that they will not be able to stand still until the next windmill is attacked.

Americans are especially vulnerable to these demonstrations of individualism and self-promotion. It is entirely modern to be such, and no nation is as modern as the US -- and thus, none is so filled with all those qualities of which Modernism is composed.

It may be that only the rule of monastic life is able to combat such furies as we possess. The first rule of monastic life is Obedience. Individualism, ego and self-assertion must be entirely purged before obedience may be undertaken. It is in this light that one should read the Apostle as he says:

“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy to all men.” [Ti 3.1-2 (RSV)]

Thus, the Love of the NT replaces the Law of the OT.

[Owen Jones]

John Locke has been far more devastating to true faith than Marx ever could have been. But the real question is, what is one to do? Do you simply end up joining a parish family of seven or eight "hard core" traditionalists, for whom tradition is like an obssession?

[Razhden Irakli Guriadze]

Christ is risen!

Change is something I get when I make a purchase.

If God doesn't change then where is the need for the church to change? I don't think the church was created to keep up with the trends of society.

God bless us all,
ICXC,
Razhden

[Richard McBride]

Christos Anesti !

“What is one to do?”

That has been my question too, for quite a while. Like Seraphim, I saw the consternation of people, visitors and converts, who were faced with, (A) What by appearance was a language problem; versus (B) What by tradition had been home -- the Church -- to many people, some of them for 2000 years.

(A) Is the necessity to convert the Gentiles; (B) Is the necessity for continuity in the Church. If the only solution is “change”, then as Razhden suggests, we disrupt Church continuity. No way around it: That is what tradition offers. Destroy tradition and there goes the Church.

Americans pride themselves on establishing 15 minutes of tradition; then it is someone else’s turn in the spot light. This seems bizarre to everyone -- except to Americans and the demons who cackle over our confusion.

To my mind the problem of language is in mere appearances only. Once one invests a little time and effort in attending a non-English service, once one becomes conversant with the forms of Orthros, the Divine Liturgy and Vespers, once one studies and experiences these forms a bit, then they are recognizable in any language. I’ve attended services in Russian, French, German, Farsi, and Dutch (actually, I think it was Walloon), and I speak none of these. But it didn’t seem to matter to the Holy Spirit -- who was always there before me. And therein lies the link-up which does matter!

Then too, I recall, in the beginning with Arabic, that it was not only strange, it was unsettling. Thank God, the Holy Spirit encouraged me to put away those demonic suggestions of discontent, and before long I was croaking along with Yara Boorjham like a native.

Unhappily, not everyone answers the call to Orthodoxy, seeking instead some lost memory from childhood, some sort of earthly comfort, which was probably never part of God’s initiative anyway. But those who are willing to invest a small amount of effort will reap great rewards in Orthodoxy. Surely, Seraphim has done this himself.

Still, in spite of his own good experiences, Seraphim sees the problem of language and tradition as looming, at least in the minds of wanna-bees. So, I must not be correct in my belief that when one invests a small effort in experiencing the Divine Liturgy and learns to properly prepare for the Divine Mysteries, that all else is irrelevant. And this is where I think Seraphim has already suggested the solution.

It is in experiencing the rule of monastic life. Seraphim is right, I think, in that every parish should offer regular retreats to monasteries for everyone in the parish. It should become as thoroughly used a part of parish life as the coffee hour. This should overcome the problem of initial lack of experience (after all, it is always difficult in the beginning, to learn a new game; doesn’t anyone learn new games any more?)

IN any event, one cannot simply trash the Orthodox traditions of the many, or even the few. Rashden knows this full well. That would not only NOT solve the problem of those who will not spend the effort to learn the liturgies, but it would surely destroy the Church. These sorts of problems are those I should describe as belonging to the impact of Vatican II. Or, as Razhden describes it: “I don't think the church was created to keep up with the trends of society.” And this recalls the worry I have heard Protestants express as, “being relevant”. In the New Age it is to be nice, in all things; for here, there is no such thing as sin.

Yes, I think monasteries should be the answer. But they must be canonical -- none of that individualistic splitting off to worship a nature god in the woods of California (today), or New England (in Emerson’s time).

Alithos Anesti !

[M.C. Steenberg]

I am greatly enjoying this new discussion, especially with its emphasis on monasticism, even through 'by-stander' experience or pilgrimage, as providing a means to aid in the Church's 'social stability' in a postmodern context. However, a fair and important caution ought to be expressed. I, like many here, am I great lover of monasticism and the monastic life, but we must be careful not to idealize this vocation as 'the pure way', opposing it to parish life as impure or untenable. Monasteries have their strifes, too. They struggle with the social and societal contexts of their day, as do the parishes. They are filled with men and women who have egos, agendas, and passionate hang-ups, just as are the parishes.

Yet God purifies such men and women through this life -- through this great vocation of obedience. The contexts with which one enters the monastery are real and impacting, but obedience purifies them. This can also happen in the parish: it is not the reserve of the nuns and monks. But what works this purification, in whatever its ecclesiastical setting, is obedience. We see the monasteries as ideals, in some sense, because the virtue and command of obedience is lived there quite noticeably. But this should be true of the parishes also. The faithful of the parishes are called to be every bit as obedient as the monastics, though their obedience is of a different sort. It is just as strict an obedience, though of a different character.

It is to our great shame (and sin) that this 'parish obedience' is lacking in so many places. The monasteries stand out as lights, in this sense, because one sees there the obedience that each community requires, whatever its situation. It is the obedience which every parish needs. It is the obedience which few parishes profess.

The solution to so many of the Church's present woes is to be found, in my mind, in the recapturing of the spirit of obedience. The Christian life is the Obedient Way. Whenever this way is shunned, division, dissolution, schism, heresy and many other woes begin. When it is the way that is walked, healing, union, truth and sanctification are experienced. If one ponders hard, it becomes apparent that there are very few 'problems' in the Church today that are not the product of disobedience, and which could not be set on the pathway to healing through obedience.

XB, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

But let's not commit the logical fallacy, Mathew, of saying that because A is true, then B must be false. I certainly would not want to be caught in the trap of having to say that there was something inherently impure or insufficient for salvation about parish life. The question of perfection is only a troubling problem to contemporary people, because we tend to assume perfection to be some kind of static state. I know faithful Orthodox laymen and clerics who almost pine away for monasticism for themselves, because they think that is perfection, and their own mundane religious life isn't and can never be. As a result, they tend to always be dissatisfied with what they are doing and miss the point.

I think the ideal should not be to glamorize or idealize monasticism. I look at it pragmatically. You've simply got to have living examples of the kind of life Christ lived in which material possessions, sex, ambition, are totally rejected and despised, the body is despised (not as evil but as a stumbling block), where praying unceasingly is a job, not just wishful thinking.

I see perfection in the Christian tradition as acquiring the humility to know that one is chief among sinners. It's not the absence of sin. And as many of the Fathers claimed, and especially the desert fathers, when one has made some progress in the spiritual life is exactly when one's soul is most at risk. So perfection is also persistence in the ascetic life.

Finally, as a practical matter, the world admires people who are capable of rejecting the world. Everyone knows, intuitively, even when they can't admit it, that this is a higher way, the path of true freedom. This is why the so-called New Left was so successful, because they had the APPEARANCE of rejecting materialism. It appeared to be a kind of otherworldly sort of thing. And, in fact, if you look at the history of leftism, it is a heresy of monasticism. Cuba is a monastic state, imposed by terror. They have, afterall, managed to eliminate obesity in Cuba!

As for legitimate, traditional monasticism, Parishes need that external standard as a kind of goad. And also from a practical matter, parish priests simply cannot perform the spiritual tasks expected of them. They have an inherent conflict of interests, and too many conflicting responsibilities. It is a major accomplishment just for parish priests to inspire the people to participate in traditional, liturgical observances beyond the minimilistic level.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen writes:


But let's not commit the logical fallacy, Mathew, of saying that because A is true, then B must be false. I certainly would not want to be caught in the trap of having to say that there was something inherently impure or insufficient for salvation about parish life.

Thank you for this reminder; it is exactly the point I was trying to make. One's enthusiasm for monasticism as a source of renewal for the Church in modernity (which it is) must be carefully maintained, so that it never stumbles into the trap of seeing it as the pure way, and parish life as thereby impure or, worse, wrong. As you stated, A can be right without B being wrong. In the case at hand, the 'rightness' of A (monasticism) is taken by some to imply that B (parish life) is inherently flawed and, idyllically, should be done away with -- 'converted' into monasticism. But the Church has given us both treasures and Christ has sanctified both ways: we have here a case of A being used as a model and guidepost to sanctify B. In this we can find real restoration.

XB, Matthew

[Richard McBride]

Timely advice

In anticipating where these current monastic speculations might lead, it is well that Matthew threw in the caveat, “... we must be careful not to idealize this vocation as 'the pure way', opposing it to parish life as impure or untenable.” There is indeed a tendency in reading the works of the Fathers, who were mostly monks aspiring to perfection, to forget the quite different alternative reality facing us -- for people who live in the world.

Both Matthew and Seraphim are speaking to this problem of living in the world, without its advantage of ceonobitic isolation. Seraphim has suggested that one recourse for parish life is to take advantage of available monasteries, for there it is easier to become immersed -- even over a short stay -- in the aims of the perfect life. Particularly, Matthew has pointed out the differences between the two forms of life -- worldly and coenobitic -- as both being necessary, and especially about the rule of obedience which may be applied differently in both cases. For me, this sage advice raises at least three questions before others:

(1) A RULE OF LIFE: I’m certain that everyone who reads the Fathers, as they gently push us toward the rule of obedience, see conflictions between that rare atmosphere from which the Fathers speak versus our own smog filled situations. And at times it is difficult to reconcile the two -- certainly it is for me. The best I may do presently, is to filter out those lessons of the Fathers which seem to apply more directly to daily praxis, and storing (not disregarding) more esoteric lessons for later contemplation.

(2) TEACHING: As Seraphim says: “... parish priests simply cannot perform [all] the spiritual tasks expected of them.” I added the “all” here because I have never seen a parish priest who did not perform wonders in working with this flock. This seems particularly difficult among the Greek parishes, which having often begun as Greek social clubs, leaves the people (sometimes) with the impression that the priest is little more than the manager of their club. And while this exaggerates the problem, my experience is that Greek parishes are harder on their priests than any other religion -- Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. But there is one problem which relates to Seraphim’s comments and which I think arises out of this pressure cooker in which the priest lives. It is that in the pace of great pressures, the priest often loses track of educating his flock. I mean more than simple commentaries on the daily Gospel; I refer to at least a serious re-education, especially of the born-into-Orthodoxy members who may never have even learned proper customs (starting with, How to cross one’s self without seeming to be brushing away flies), progressing to even a rudimentary Orthodox theology (Why being Orthodox has little to do with modern democracy).

(3) TRADITION: Too often I have seen old country emigrants who have lost everything in the wars of the Middle East, who are themseolves lost people who come to the Church as the only thing they have left. It is unthinkable NOT to receive these people with the love they are due as brothers and sisters, and to help them in every way possible. I have also seen small bands of these emigrants grow into large groups, to grow large enough in number to begin to influence the workings of the Church into which they only recently arrived as foundlings. And in small Churches it is not surprising that at times they have “taken over” the Parish Councils and introduced many changes -- from the form of chanting to picking a new priest. So be it! I say enjoy and learn. Those members (not always Anglos) who are infuriated by these circumstances (perhaps, because they are reminded of the rude ways of their own past -- who are trying to rise to a grander social status) and who leave in huff, these people have willingly cast themselves into an exile which may be worse than that experienced by the emigrants.

The tribal hatreds which lie so close to the surface (perhaps in all of us) are a rich vein for the demons to tap. And they do with great success. This is one of the conditions which a priest may only effect by refusing to allow it -- but he is unlikely to be able to stamp it out. It is here that I think a parish might turn to the local monasteries for an aid in training the entire parish.

The great success the monasteries might have is to focus everyone better upon the rule of obedience to God, and thus to his representatives on earth. It allows no carping about one’s abbot, or priest.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier, Richard wrote:


A RULE OF LIFE: I’m certain that everyone who reads the Fathers, as they gently push us toward the rule of obedience, see conflictions between that rare atmosphere from which the Fathers speak versus our own smog filled situations. And at times it is difficult to reconcile the two -- certainly it is for me. The best I may do presently, is to filter out those lessons of the Fathers which seem to apply more directly to daily praxis, and storing (not disregarding) more esoteric lessons for later contemplation.

I have met many people who have 'given up' on attempting to follow the Fathers for precisely the reason you mention here. The context from which the Fathers wrote can, indeed, seem distant, and their message thus somehow 'inapplicable' to a world and personal situation that is apparently light-years appart from its antecedent. Yet, as you mentioned, there are lessons to be gleaned for any circumstance. Most of the Fathers were monks, it is true; yet their message is not only for monks. There are deep truths to the monastic Way that are also truths for the married Way, for the parish Way. One of the first steps in learning to live within a patristic mindset is learning to read the particular directives of given texts from within the embrace of one's present-day position in the Church -- a task which requires wisdom, but for which there is much aid in the form of spiritual fathers and priests.

XB, Matthew