The heart of salvation

[Rick H.]

Setting the Stage

Dear All:

As we prepare to move into a consideration of "a personal spiritual practice" tomorrow, God willing, I would like to post this contribution (below) which is from the An American Orthodoxy? thread as a way to set the stage, for a new movie, so to speak. This post is by Fr. Raphael as it relates to the problem of jurisdictions.

But, I am posting this here now, before we move forward into a consideration of a personal spiritual practice, because what is said here is so perfect as it applies to our upcoming discussion. What I mean will become more apparent very quickly as we move forward. But, I want to place this here now for your review and to have handy to refer back easily. I have placed the key passages in bold and underlined some, so you can give it a quick skim and lift-out the thinking here that is so helpful and balanced (as well as see it in its original context). This is a way of knowing for one who is living in the real world. But, please notice the "spirit" and the "mood" here in which this is presented. Fr. Raphael models the "agape" approach beautifully here. But, I hope you will take just a minute here to lift-out, and keep in mind the principles that he is laying down in his usual 'spot on' manner. Anyone who reads Moltmann knows that when he is on he is on, and in this sense here Fr. R. is dead on in the following.

Peace,
Rick


canonicity and the north american church
Posted by: fr_r_v
On: 30-11-2006 04:04 PM

Canonicity relates both to the spirit in which something within the Church is done and also to the situation the Church is in. In other words there are guiding principles that guide the Church- the canons, Scripture, writings of the Fathers-but all of this must be applied with discernment to the actual situation at hand.

This is critical because if we separate principles from the need to apply them to actual situations the Church lives through then we will always neglect discernment. And in a real way we can act according to the outward injunctions of the canons while denying the spirit of the Church.

The starting point in understanding the situation we now find ourselves in North America is the chaos which followed the Russian revolution. Few would argue that there was up to this time a canonical situation in the N American church. From the chaos which followed the Revolution however multiple jurisdictions were set up.

Here I think lies a critical step which was taken which to this day is not examined enough. Often this situation of multiple jurisdictions is described as if itself being non-canonical. This overlooks however the fact that the Church must deal with the actual situations it is given. The Church was given a situation of unprecedented social and spiritual chaos in which often the most basic canonical connections with the rest of the Church were compromised. In this situation it was often necessary- and canonical- for the local Church to oversee and maintain care for the flock in the best way it could. And in the actual situation of the 20th century this care at times was like that of a triage hospital; ie care for those in most critical need and immediately entrusted to ones care.

Even though in many ways unprecedented this kind of care by the Church is not in itself non-canonical. Indeed we could even say that the alternative- leaving the flock to be scattered for the sake of formal administrative links to the rest of the Church- is what would have been non-canonical. In any case the main point here is that what can be overlooked is how multiple jurisdictions arose as a direct way of caring for the flock.

Of course we can question the legitimacy of these jurisdictions. At the time almost every jurisdiction was out of communion with some other(s) precisely because it questioned their legitimacy or whether they were 'canonical'. This time however seems to have passed & for the most part we now accept the basic legitimacy of each others' jurisdictions. This should not be taken for granted for it shows in fact what great strides forward have in fact been made towards unity in the past while.

Basically it seems that we are approaching a time when we are no longer a real threat to each others' sense of what it means to be part of the Church. For in fact one of the most tragic legacies of the time of chaos was that gradually many jurisdictions came to represent a particular kind of Orthodoxy- 'traditional', or 'liberal' or 'N American' or 'ethnic'- to the exclusion of whatever it felt was most threatening to it. In this atmosphere it was inevitable that jurisdictions became brand names and fortresses with their own mentalities.

Perhaps this too served a purpose in its time but then it came to be only of harm for even the most worthy causes within the Church can be distorted from lack of balance. And that is what the accusations of each other not being 'canonical' were coming to mean.

It is wonderful that we have entered a time when the situation which gave rise to multiple jurisdictions has passed away. Also passing away is the time when each jurisdiction finds its legitimacy in comparison with how some other jurisdiction is wrong. Instead we seem to be entering a time when we can call on the experience of each other as people of One Church regardless of jurisdiction.

This brings us to the thought that we will find ourselves part of one Church only insomuch as we see and find that we are part of One Church.
As someone wisely said: administrative and official recognition can only follow the recognition which the people have already achieved as members of the One Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

On Unification and Diversification





We,as Orthodox Christians, and others as well, so often wonder where our GIFT resides at the Heart of our Life: ... preaching, teaching, healing, prayer, evangelization, or just simply the Faith, Hope and Love - the Greatest of the Gifts according to St. Paul in 1Cor.13.

My prayer is that you, and and of us who access this web-site, as well as all Orthodox Christians continue to search-out, acknowledge and cultivate the Gifts daily in our personal Spiritual Practice.

Let us pray for one-another during this coming Lenten Season, at the Heart of the very Prayer of Christ Jesus.

macie-duquette

Dear Marie,

Yes, let us pray for one-another just as you have said, "at the Heart of the [Priestly Prayer] of Christ Jesus. As Christ Himself prayed that we might be perfected in unity (John 17:23), may we pray for and seek unity in Him who unifies us.

And, also speaking to the subject of "Gifts" as you have well stated both our dilemma and our hope may we also pray for grace in this area as it relates to the Holy Spirit of God who diversifies just as Christ unifies.

I am speaking the language of Lossky now, who has concluded that "The work of Christ concerns human nature which He recapitulates in His hypostasis. The work of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, concerns persons, being applied to each one singularly."

The work of Christ unifies; the work of the Holy Spirit diversifies.

I think that the term "mystical theology" means different things to different people. But, I also think the above proposition is a foundational aspect of any true Christian mystical theology which is really not a negotiable point, anymore than is the thinking that the work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit are inseparable. In the Life of the Church and in the Life of the individual members of the Church there is a Christological/Pnuematology or a Pneumatological/Christology that unites us and diversifies us! And, from here we could consider what I have proposed in the past about a radical individualism as being the way/means to true Christian Community as we consider that it is only when we recognize the above proposition and when we "die to ourselves" or "surrender to the sovereignty of God" (just as the other good doctor John Cassian has taught) that through a radical individualism--which I think is understood best by the words of Paul in Gal 2:20 we can find entrance into the Community of communities.

I really think that if more Christians understood what is being said in the above thought unit then there would be a much higher degree of genuine unity and koinonia of the Holy Spirit manifested through Love for one another, and a much higher degree of freedom as promoted earlier in the agape approach. And, with this being the case, I think there would necessarily have to be a much lower degree of eros and resentment/suspicion and the need/desire to dominate. So we will keep working towards this goal of 'awakening' to our personal potential within the Eucharistic Community one-step-at-a-time.

Yes Marie, different gifts and as you say, " . . . to search-out, acknowledge and cultivate the Gifts daily in our personal Spiritual Practice," I say Amen-Amen. And, I wonder if you could please possibly expand on the phrase " . . .'cultivate the Gifts' . . ." When I was reading your posting which carries with it your customary 'trust/betach' in one hand and 'courage' in the other, this phrase jumped out at me like it was in a bolder type than the rest of the post. And, while it seems to me that you usually make a seemingly intuitive posting to a particular thread when you feel 'moved' or 'compelled' I am wondering if you could expand on the meaning behind this phrase. Or in other words, if you would, please help me to understand how or in what ways we might be able to cultivate some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I agree with you that Gifts can be cultivated. While modern secular psychology will say there is only a point to which some of these things can or cannot be cultivated viz. some who meet or exceed most of the criteria for some HFA (highly functional autism) disorders cannot cultivate love, or empathy, or compassion. Whereby, some of these children and adults are offered only medicine and such things as scripted responses and ways of reacting to certain situations in order to 'mask' or compensate for the deficiency . . .

. . . and now we have really intersected with Audrey's An American Orthodoxy? thread! I knew this would happen. But, let's not look at this as a bad thing. Let's just keep going and 'simply' trusting in the sovereignty of God here. I noticed that a new monachos member, "thinker64" joined the community yesterday. And, I also noticed that she is a retired Psychologist. Hmmm . . . could God be assembling a certain group of people here at monachos at just such a time as this for a specific purpose?

I know I am all over the place here. I have been feeling a little out of sorts lately and having trouble focusing (not to mention shoveling snow all morning in my driveway and at my two neighbors--we had/have a real winter storm going on now!). But, as the good Orthodox doctor of monachos, John Charmley has said from time-to-time about the "energy" of this thread and the previous An American Orthodoxy? thread, I would like to suggest in conclusion here that just as St. Basil has written "On the Holy Spirit" , the "Energy" of the Holy Spirit is distributed according to the proportion of faith. So let us continue working together in faith and prayer in the hope that God will send Early Church History folks into our already most excellent communities of contributors in these two threads.

Peace and Love,

Rick

[I]"Truth leading reason"

[Rick H.]

Dear 'Learner,'

Thanks for helping me to understand things a little better in your last posting, and also please know that there is definitely no need for any kind of apology. While I am actually somewhat used to having the occasional shoe flung my way while I sing, I did not feel that you were doing this. You are and have been from your first appearance a huge inspiration to me--from my limited point of view, if you are not a trained academic then you are clearly exceptionally gifted. Honestly, Something tells me that you have been gifted for a special vocation; however, I will honor your request to prune my expectations.

I agree with your comments about the good doctor, I am learning from him as well. I laughed out loud when you asked who this Lord Robert guy was. But, then I was horrified as I realized what I had done there. Robert is the monachos member known as Seraphim98. I haven't heard from him in awhile, but he has a very unique perspective that is most helpful. Robert is a writer of fiction with what I perceive to be a strong monastic leaning. In some ways I view him as a monk without a monastery.

Thanks very much for the posting on "shoes." I seem to keep going back to that as well as the "hitch hiker" piece. These both speak volumes to me and I will be surprised if we do not refer back to these as we move forward. In the "shoes" posting you wrote:



As I understand it, spiritual direction (in a set tradition with set practices) seeks not to enforce a contrived uniformity, but guides the practitioner to find his/her own unique fulfillment or transformation through those exercises.


This is my understanding as well and the basis for the assertion that regarding a personal spiritual practice one size does not fit all (as we seem to have formed a consensus here). At last count we had three people agreeing that one size does not fit all, as we are using it, which in monachosland is a huge majority. I am not sure that we have ever had three people agree on the same thing since I have been here ;)

Also as you have written:




While this may not readily be regarded a spiritual practice, I believe that many here will acknowledge that this modern "communion" has become an integral part of their lives, and thus their spiritual reality.

One may even go so far as to suggest that Internet communities are shadows of heavenly societies, where kindred spirits "find" one another, and feel "at home"; where communication does not employ all the bodily senses and faculties, but are mental and received immediately; where any sense of distance (space) is lost, even as we are currently present and available to one another over vast distances across the planet.

Like icon painting, it should be a prayer---one's presence to others on the net, now, and in the future. Long after we are gone from here, Archives will still reveal our minds.

What else is there to discipline?

If we are to be renewed in the spirit of our minds, and be transformed by the renewal of our minds, what better method of practice is there than to (daily) express, confess, try, stretch, bedazzle, and confound our thinking.

And to become mindful. :)



Firstly, you caused me to realize something that I had never considered before. That my children's children and their children and so on may very well be able to do a search on what their crazy grandpa/great grandpa used to think, and even gain a little insight into such things as personality, temperament, etc. I wish I could do that now with some of my relatives who have passed on in order to see what they thought and how the handled themselves and interacted with others. I think some folks are more prone to reveal themselves in an Internet community like this, than they would be if they were speaking face to face say in the fellowship hall of their church on Sunday after the liturgy. I wonder how many people here, especially those who are prone to tantrums and other emotional displays, would post some of the things that they do if they considered the fact that they are documenting patterns of instability that will be archived and available long after we are gone? Now I am feeling the need to possibly go back over my contributions here :) But, thanks for the thought provoking comment here Learner.

About our time of writing and thinking that we invest here at monachos, I will be the first to confess that probably more times than not I seem to coincide my monachos time with my espresso and pipe break--there's just something about a fine cup of coffee and my favorite light and dark cavendish blend and my laptop with monachos on the screen that creates a very special place for me. And, while even though I have it on a most excellent authority that you never want to try to separate a monk from his morning cup or mug of coffee (Fr. R. whom I miss his contributions severely here), I am afraid that caffeine and nicotine are not the most conducive aids to monachos as a spiritual practice, but all that aside, I think I would have to allow a lot of room for your suggestion and comparison to our time spent here as being a type of spiritual practice. All things work together in the process of spiritual renewal. You reference a renewal of our minds which takes up more than a small amount of my Bible study with the verses that speak to this subject.

To be transformed by the renewal of our minds, to be "mindful," yes. This is IT. And, in true fashion, just as we get to the meat and potatoes we find that we have stayed to long and it is time to leave before the good stuff hits the table. And, then we wonder how to conclude in a way that doesn't look like we are just circling around looking for a place to land ;) And, then we remember a past reference to the German author of a book called The Christian Faith in volume one who said:

"The common element in all howsoever diverse expressions of piety, by which these are conjointly distinguished from all other feelings, or in other words, the self-identical essence of piety, is this: the consciousness of being absolutely dependent, or, which is the same thing, of being in relation with God."

Hmmm . . . where were we? Oh yes, a personal spiritual practice . . .

Thank you 'Learner.'

Rick (the pruned)

[Lourens]

Thank you for your generous response; one filled with great humor! I found my heart lifted and laughing out loud. Thanks.

Learner (another monk without a monastery).

[Rick H.]

Dear ALL:

As we seem to be in a holding pattern here at the present, I would like to take this opportunity to ask for some help locating an article. I gave it a shot and couldn't find this on the net. I found a site founded by Jung http://www.guildofpastoralpsychology.org.uk/recordti.html that indicates the presence of this article, but I couldn't navigate my way around well enough to find it. ugh. I really don't want to have to take a computer class, but maybe I will have to do this. But, anyway, there is an article that has been referenced here at monachos (below two postings) and I am wondering if some who may have better internet research skills than me, or some that may have a copy of this article could help me out here. I am interested in reading what is being said about these monks who concentrate on "centers" or "chakras."

Thank you very much for any assistance here.

In Christ,

Rick


Hello,

I'm hoping that someone can answer questions I have about an article I came across entitled, "Somatopsychic Techniques In Greek Orthodox Christianity" by Rev. Anthony Bloom. The article describes the practice by Orthodox Monks of concentrating on "centers" while praying the Jesus Prayer. Rev. Bloom locates centers in the cranium (Cerebro-Frontal Center), the throat (Bucco-Laryngeal Center), the chest and the heart. Can anyone tell me when and how this practice developed? Who developed this practice? Also, are there any books/articles that describe these "centers" in more detail?

Regards,

John


John - Your question regarding the publication by the lately saved = (+2003) Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh was from a 31 page publication = titled Asceticism published in 1957 by the Guild of Pastoral Psychology, = lecture #95, before he was ordained a Bishop and later a Metropolitan. I = have not been able to locate this item. He has many publications which = are of great merit. His most easily found item is a pamphlet on Orthodox = Prayer which I did not find particularly edifying.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Father Seraphim,

I hope that you will please forgive me for making a posting that has disturbed you so severely. I am afraid that I am guilty, too often, of presupposing some awareness of contemporary theological trends and methods in my writing here at monachos. I was reading a post by Paul Cowan this morning, and in his characteristically loving and humble fashion he was thanking someone for communicating with him in a way that was meaningful and in a way that he could easily understand. Paul said something like he values and appreciates the theologians on this website but . . . Oh, I will just go and copy it instead of trying to remember. Paul said:



What a beautiful irenic spirit Paul models on a consistent basis. If he is not a spiritual father now, it is very easy to see that he will make an excellent spiritual father for someone in the future. But, the point is that even under the best of circumstances, when the playing field is 'level,' there will be a lack of understanding as well as misunderstandings and confusion in discussions like this even with the best of intentions.

Whereby, in an effort to promote "open" and "friendly" discussion here in this forum, I would like to suggest, if you have time to go back and carefully reread what was posted, I think, you will see that there was a request for help in finding an article written by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh about Monks focusing on energy centers which seem to correspond directly with the Chakra system found in Indian Philosophy. This article was referenced here on monachos once before, but the person who said he had a copy is no longer an active member. And, also, I think you will see that the article written by Robert A. Jonas was written from a place of Comparative Religion. I read very widely, and I am happy to discuss things with my regular discussion partners in the fellowship hall after church on Sunday over a cup of coffee, or whether I have the good fortune to meet someone at my favorite book store, or in the coffee shop of my favorite book store, and we strike up a conversation. I seem to talk a lot about coffee on this site I just realized--maybe this means I should consider cutting back a little :) Or, maybe include more chai than I do at the present ;) But, anyway, please reread these posts that you have commented on and I think that you will possibly see things a little differently with the exception of your remarks [below] which I will address now:



And, as 'I' reread what you are saying here, *even now*, I think I might see what it is that you are reacting to here. Initially, when you provide the question/statement, "First, what is this pooling . . ." at this point possibly, you have read over my sentence just before this as I refer to the "diversity of talents and gifts" that I appreciate and hope will be brought together. And, you may be thinking that I am speaking in regard to Herman's post, where I attempt to give him an 'atta-boy!' for his swimming pool analogy--where there is a "deep" end and a "shallow" end with a kiddie pool. And, possibly you think I am placing the theologians in the deep end and the monastics in the shallow end. But, if this is the case, again please forgive me here, I see now that I have committed one of the most grave grammatical sins of mixing my metaphors. If this is what you thought, and I can see how this would be the case, please know that I in no way meant this. Sometimes, grammatically and spiritually speaking, words really do just get in the way don't they? In fact, at the risk of suffering the wrath of any fellow theologians here, I will say plainly the opposite. That is, frankly, based on my experience in Christian academia, as it relates to what I refer to as a "mystical theology" (which is pretty much parallel to Lossky's view), I would in fact place those, in general, whose ethos is monasticism in the deep end, and I would, in general, place those whose ethos is academia squarely in "kiddie pool." So, if this is what you thought then please know that I owe you one fine cup of coffee here along with my apology. I am not driving to Canada though, maybe we can meet in the middle? :)

But, before we have that cup of coffee together (especially since I am buying :) just to finish up one last piece of old business here. I would also like to clearly share with you that I *will* take you to the mat on your suggestion that there is no difference between one whose ethos [and training] is monasticism and one whose ethos [and training] is academic theology. It would be an ignorant statement to say this in relation to the distinctions that are being drawn at the present. (Are monks allowed to wrestle?) And, this is said from the ground of a spiritual philosophy as referenced above, as well as with the understanding that "the gift of theology" is something completely different from the academic theology which academic theologians obtain from their work and instruction in seminaries and other institutions of higher learning. But, I think upon a review of all that has been said, God willing, you will be ready for that cup of coffee now, and some open and friendly discussion as it relates to our topic which is "The Heart of Salvation!"

Peace to the reader,

Rick

Truth leading reason

Dear Rick,

With all due respect and in a spirit of humility and non-aggression I will reply to your several statements and requests.

First, I am aware of contemporary trends in theology and when my health allows (particularly when I do not have a severe migraine) I love reading and have always had a passion for reading, especially theology. Despite the accusations of my biological family that I live 'somewhere in the 6th Century of Byzantium' this is not quite true, though it is partially manifest in my mindset.

Second, I have not read the article by the late blessed Metropolitan Anthony. Though, if he does refer and state in his article that Orthodox monastics have in the past or present focused on energy centres that seem to correspond directly with the Chakra system found in Indian Philosophy, then I disagree with His Grace and state that this is not the case and that nothing of this nature exists at the present time on the Holy Mountain and nor did it in the past, in the sense of the direct illustrations of Chakras found in Classical Hindu texts.

If I were to agree with Metropolitan Anthony's position (if he did indeed say this or did not say this) then I would be in complete disobedience to my spiritual father of blessed memory, Archimandrite Sophrony, who himself spent decades weeping tears of repentance due to his very folly in pursuing Eastern non-Christian metaphysics.

Here I am not in the least placing the person of Metropolitan Anthony against the person of Archimandrite Sophrony. I am stating what I learned from Father Sophrony who was my beloved teacher, guide and 'personification' of the very ideals I sought when I first desired the monastic, angelic life.

Third, I am not party to Comparative Religion. I believe its foundation is tenuous at best and finally gravely erroneous. There is nothing that I have personally read in the material of Comparative Religion that "inspires one to prayer" which are the words of Fr. Sophrony regarding what I should read.

If you wish to pursue Vedanta, Comparative Religion, Tibetan Buddhism or whatever, you are certainly free to do so. Allow me the freedom to disagree and to say with brotherly compassion that these non-Christian spiritual pursuits are a waste of time, plain and simple.

Mindfulness of death - here is something you will find in non-Christian and Orthodox Christian writings - is there a similarity, is there a meeting point, a convergence, an agreement?

Finally, though I may come across as abrasive; I am really a softie at heart. I am more than aware of my countless transgressions and sins, and thus I am not casting stones at you, rather I am the one to be cast away.

As I watch my personal life eclipsed by almost totally encompassing illness, I take comfort in the many, many words given to me by Father Sophrony, in his little white stucco hemitage in the blessed Monastery of St. John the Baptist, Essex, England. Truly blessed are those who can so readily go to the Monastery, where I toiled and shed blood and tears with my beloved brothers in the monastic life. These are eternal moments, these are words of life which I must be obedient to, for they have proved their value over and over, and carried me through the desert of my life and the Red Sea of my transgressions.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What does anyone think about this here at monachos. Who determines what for you [?] as it relates to what you do or don't do?

Well as a bear of big head but little brain, I think I am subject to my bishop to determine what is or is not appropriate. As long as I believe that he does not depart from the Apostolic Witness, then I TRUST that if I follow my shepherd, I will be led to the greener pasture and lay beside the still waters. That does not mean I agree with everything my bishop says or does, but I remain obedient to the Tradition of the Holy Church through my obedience to my right-believing bishop. And I trust that my bishop rightly believes, because his brother bishops IN SYMPHONIA accept that he remains within the Church.

Where it gets dicey (for me at least) is when bishops disagree. At these times I look to the example of the Apostle Peter as he walked on the stormy waters. As long as he kept focussed on Christ, he was able to keep himself above water, but once he became distracted by the storm around him, he began to sink. Maybe I am sometimes not so much wading as I am treading water...

On a side note (as if I haven't strayed afar on this thread already), in light of some recent postings, I think it worth mentioning a very perhaps Orthodox online peculiarity that I have become aware of over the years. On many Orthodox fora, it has been noted that the percentage of antagonistic postings increases dramatically at the approach of Lent. I hope Rick may take some small comfort in the simple fact that any "heat" in this thread (and some others) is most likely due to this phenomenon and to not be too concerned. This too, shall pass. FWIW.

Herman
DISCLAIMER
The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for a thought-provoking and eirenic post; it is to be hoped that the Lenten phenomenon observed by Herman does not manifest itself in response.

When you write

But if we really believe that outside of our own communities no one is a Christian and everyone is living in error and delusion, then why are we doing so little about it?
you touch on something close to my heart, and to which allusion has been made before.

I am struck by your formulation of the situation within which we find ourselves as Orthodox; indeed, of course, there are those (even here, perhaps) who might be too polite to tell us that in their eyes we are not Orthodox. That path, however, is one I hope to avoid, since I would rather address what is at the heart of this matter, which is the mystery of the fact that a majority of the population of the world is not even Christian, let alone Orthodox.

We can see, if we go back to Eusebius, that his work is infused with a sense of teleology; history was moving towards God's preordained goal - which was the conversion of the world to His Word; Constantine's conversion was a a capstone of God's great plan, and with the advent of a Christian Empire, the Word would be spread wherever the Imperial Eagle flew; the teleology was clear - what had started in an upper room in Jerusalem had, thanks to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the blood of the martyrs, and the determination of the Christians, become the dominant Faith of the universal Empire. Eusebius seems in little doubt where this is all heading.

Well, more than a millennium and a half later, we cannot quite subscribe to that narrative - at least not in that time-scale.

The fifth century saw the undivided Church split; the seventh century saw swathes of the Eastern Roman Empire absorbed into the new Muslim Empire; the eleventh century saw a formalising of the division between Eastern and Western Christendom; the period up to 1453 saw the gradual disappearance of the Eastern Roman Empire (aided and abetted by the events of 1204) and the subjugation of its Christian peoples, who became a millet of the Ottoman Empire. The sixteenth century saw the splintering of western Christendom which has continued apace ever since, and which shows not sign of even slowing down, let alone stopping.

The one exception to this story of Orthodox martyrdom was Imperial Russia; but the twentieth century, which witnessed the gradual freeing of the Orthodox peoples of the Balkans, saw the great cataclysm of the Bolshevik revolution and the terrible suppression and persecution of the great Orthodox beacon; but for the great courage manifested by so many Orthodox, and but for the Grace of God, that beacon must have been snuffed out; but, miracle, it was not, it flickered valiantly inside the great Gulag, and blazed fitfully outside it, a light of hope in the great darkness.

But the result was that by the dawning of the second Christian millennium, the hopes of Eusebius were still vain ones. The most populous Christian denomination was Roman Catholicism; the greatest number of people calling themselves Christian were probably the dispersed masses of Protestants.

The forces of globalisation sweeping across the world were allied with an atheistic secularism; another of the great global forces was Islam; the most populous country in the world allowed Christianity only under its own strict supervision; another of the growing global powers, India, was Christian only at the margins.

In place of the teleology of Eusebius, we found ourselves in a world where even Christianity as most widely defined, was a minority belief, and where Orthodoxy, as defined by Chalcedon was a minority of a minority.

The structure of the history written by Eusebius cannot be sustained in the short term, but Peter's question is crucial: if we do not accept that those outside the Orthodox Church are in any sense Christians, what are the implications? Why are we so complacent that we do not have missions going hither and yon? What should be the relationship between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and their relationship with others who boast in naught save the crucified and resurrected Lord?

At the heart of the mystery is the relationship between His Word and the 'wisdom' of other religions. Which of us knows enough about other belief systems to be sure there is nothing of value in them? Not necessarily value to us, but value to those who believe these other things; and value in the sense that a partial light might yet lead them to the greater True Light. But how will they find that path if we do not offer a torch through dialogue or other contact?

For me, the journey from Anglicanism was from partial and fragmented light to a true light of the fullness of the faith. I would not have embarked so far along the road without the light from Anglicanism; but I would not have got even that far if I had waited to be contacted by Orthodoxy.

Too many questions, perhaps, but these thoughts may prompt others to answers - or better questions.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Peter,

You wrote:



But it still leaves me feeling that there are gaps in my consideration of the facts of life around me. We would have to accept that......

i. God has chosen to make it virtually impossible for the vast majority of people in the world to have any sort of relationship with Him, and to please Him in anyway.

ii. The spiritual yearnings of billions of people are directed towards darkness because they do not find Christ in the Orthodox Church.

Surely Eastern Orthodox really do not believe this? because if they did they would make every effort to reach all people in the world with the fulness of the Truth. In fact I have never been contacted in my life by any Eastern Orthodox with the Gospel message, nor has anyone in my old Plymouth Brethren Assembly.

In a way this brings up a point I was thinking about when I earlier replied to Rick.

What in fact are we to make of our extraordinary limitedness considering Christ's universal call that all be saved? As you say, and I strongly agree here, surely this universal call or its rejection must relate to a free choice. So similarly to what you say how can this coincide with the fact that so many have never even had the opportunity to exercise this free choice in terms of the Orthodox Church?

Here is where I can get to the point I wanted to add to my post to Rick. We must beware that when we speak of universal humanity in relation to the Church of only stopping at one point in their lives. Thus the Zen Buddhist doing his thing hopefully in the best way he knows but yet who does not know Christ. Truly if we stop at this point and force a clear answer then either all truths are equal or else the poor Zen Buddhist is damned.

But I would say that we cannot stop at this one point of a person's life since precisely it leaves out the cosmic dimension of Christ's offering of salvation to mankind & creation. And by cosmic we do not at all mean relative. Rather we mean that all things are moving to meet their fulfillment, ie their telos, in Christ, Who is the Alpha & Omega of all things.

Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him. Or to say it another way at some point for all things all that will be left is Christ and His Body. And at that point each will clearly make his/her choice, but a choice which has consistency with the choices made previously in their lives.

It's in the above context that I spoke before of there being a purposeful tension in how we speak of good outside of the Church. This tension must consciously be there not only to not force ourselves into one of two extreme positions. Really I think the deeper reason is that we know that the kind of limitedness which was caused by the Fall has not yet reached the portal where it can achieve its potential fulfillment in the culmination of time.

However we look at this issue of good outside of the Church- and it is so important precisely now when so much for both very good and very bad reasons is outside the Church- our answer must not deny either the limitedness still present in our world nor must it deny the fact that all things will one day meet the point of their fulfillment. Here we must keep walking this tight rope on both counts or else there results a very deep betrayal of our witness to the created nature.

In any case, right now there cannot be complete clarity about good outside of the Church essentially because good cannot really be separated from the fulfillment of all things in Christ.

And it's not time yet. :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father Raphael

I agree very much with all you have written.

And I especially found the sentence..


Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him. Or to say it another way at some point for all things all that will be left is Christ and His Body. And at that point each will clearly make his/her choice, but a choice which has consistency with the choices made previously in their lives.

to be very important and helpful in my own thoughts.

I am not very interested in comparative religion, especially from the sense of finding personal illumination, but a little seems necessary to respect others properly. And last night I found the following passage describing Sikhism (which I am not suggesting we now discuss). But in terms of a non-Christian being called to make a final choice about Christ (in God's will and time) in consistency with their own lives, I find many resonances here with Orthodox Truth that seem to make what you say seem very true.


Loving devotion to God is, according to Sikhism, the way to ultimate release. One can love God only when one has annihilated self-love; this means that the devotee must be humble and surrender himself fully unto God. The Gurus stress the necessity of taking refuge in God. To this end, one must first renounce pride. Constant awareness of God is the panacea for all ills. He who enshrines the Lord's lotus feet in his heart destroys sins of many existences. Devotion to God eradicates the evils in an instant and purifies the body (GG, 245). The destruction of evils may be viewed both as a cause and consequence of the practice of nam simran. Awareness of God's presence comes only when lust, wrath, avarice, attachment and egoity have departed from the devotee; when the devotee lives in constant awareness of God, the evils touch him not. Such a person is unaffected by pleasure and pain, for he has freed himself from evils such as lobh, moh and abhiman. Guru Tegh Bahadur describes such a sage as one liberated while still alive and calls him an image of God on earth (GG, I426-27).

Of course the content of these ideas is not the same as in Orthodoxy, but I can't easily say that it has no connection with Orthodox truth either, and I would hesitatantly want to think that a non-Christian living according to these principles and without the knowledge of Christ might be more pleasing to God than my own weakness, laziness, pride and self-will lived as someone who claims to be illuminated.

Again, I don't want to discuss Sikhism, I am not suggesting that Sikhism is the same as Christianity, let alone Orthodoxy (it is not), but there are echoes there of our own truth and glimmers of the light we live by, and so I think you are right that in the end of things God might fulfill what He seems to have begun in such lives according to His will. The idea of such a one making a choice which is consistent seems to balance many Scriptural ideas.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Rick,

One cannot mix truth and falsehood.

Dear Peter,

I'm not sure it's right to say that God makes it impossible for the majority of people to find Him and be saved. Who in the world has never heard of Jesus Christ? And the Christian faith is much the largest in the world. Even so, Father Sophrony said that the Gospel has not been well served in history by those who were suppposed to spread and teach it. So it is right to ask what the Orthodox Church is doing about. The answer is, in some places such as parts of Africa quite a lot. More locally, quite a few people know that I am Orthodox. They can ask me about it if they wish. I don't talk about it but colleagues know (in fact, my previous HoD has attended the Liturgy at the Monastery) , and my late first wife's family know about Orthodoxy. In fact, Kathryn said shortly before she died, 'all this [her illness and death] will have been worthwhile if only they will find a little of the faith that has been given to me'. Kathryn's family have a line of contact with the monastery in Essex, but even so, they show no sign of being interested despite seeing at close quarters what the Orthodox faith can achieve. No one wills all to be saved more than God! But He respects our freedom.

In general, I had thought that this Thread was intended to share our gleanings from spiritual sources - the Thread was prompted by a reference to St Theophan the Recluse - to help us on our journey along the Path to Salvation. The Path is illuminated for us by Christ and His Holy Church, but the landscape around us is not . So, I think, firstly, that we ought to exclude peering into the gloom to the left and to the right at non-Orthodox beliefs, and secondly that we cannot include personal spiritual experiences since it is the usual teaching that these are not to be spoken of without a blessing to do so.

Just, then, to add a snippet. Lydia has just finished reading the life of St Afanasii (Sakharov). He said that the elements of our faith are, in order, faith, repentance, prayer, and good works.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Andreas

I do not want to argue at any time, nor disagree, but I am astounded that you think that there are none who have not heard the Gospel, truly astounded. And since you say that truth and falsehood cannot be mixed then I am not sure how you can consider any who are not Eastern Orthodox and in communion with you to be Christian? I don't mean that aggressively, but if you will not allow the possibility of such a dilution of truth then anyone who is not in your communion cannot have the truth at all. So you cannot reasonably then claim that Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Eastern Orthodoxy certainly isn't. And if you are willing to say that Methodism provides enough of the truth to bring someone to a saving relationship with Christ then you must agree that there can be a mixture of truth and falsehood.

And of course it is possible to mix truth and falsehood, certainly my own life is just such a mixture, though I strive with God's grace to overcome the falsehood.

I don't want to argue so I won't, but it seems to me that if we take the view that everyone has heard the Gospel and that it is their fault if they don't approach an Orthodox Christian for instruction then it is not surprising that our mission is inadequate.

I wonder how much I really believe in the necessity of mission since even though respectfully not agreeing with your position I seem to do little myself about it.

Is there any value in discussion of spirituality if it does not lead to mission?

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Peter,

I didn't think I had suggested that Christians outside the EO Church were not Christians. The falsehood I meant was what Rick had been referring to (Buddhism, etc) and I thought my comment would be taken in that context.

The point that the Christian faith is the largest was meant to suggest that most of the world has heard of Jesus Christ as have very many non-Christians. I'm not sure where in the world (apart from some very remote places) people have never heard of Christ. Even the Orthodox Church is present in all continents and spreads from Alaska to New Zealand (and I'm not thinking of the Pacific Ocean route!)

As to salvation and other Christian confessions, that ground has already been covered widely here.

I hadn't thought of this site as having a mission. It exists and is here for those who find it. But most of us here don't need mission. We are Christians, mostly Orthodox, who share and help in the understanding of our faith. If we understand our faith clearly, there is a better chance of being able to explain it to others whom God puts in our path.

Forgive me if I did not express myself clearly.

In Christ,

Andreas.

PS As to not mixing truth and falsehood, I meant that if we know the truth, we should not take any interest in what we know to be false. Such curiosity is misplaced. Sorry if my brevity caused doubt.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Andreas

I do not want to argue at any time, nor disagree, but I am astounded that you think that there are none who have not heard the Gospel, truly astounded. And since you say that truth and falsehood cannot be mixed then I am not sure how you can consider any who are not Eastern Orthodox and in communion with you to be Christian? I don't mean that aggressively, but if you will not allow the possibility of such a dilution of truth then anyone who is not in your communion cannot have the truth at all. So you cannot reasonably then claim that Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Eastern Orthodoxy certainly isn't. And if you are willing to say that Methodism provides enough of the truth to bring someone to a saving relationship with Christ then you must agree that there can be a mixture of truth and falsehood.

And of course it is possible to mix truth and falsehood, certainly my own life is just such a mixture, though I strive with God's grace to overcome the falsehood.

I don't want to argue so I won't, but it seems to me that if we take the view that everyone has heard the Gospel and that it is their fault if they don't approach an Orthodox Christian for instruction then it is not surprising that our mission is inadequate.

I wonder how much I really believe in the necessity of mission since even though respectfully not agreeing with your position I seem to do little myself about it.

Is there any value in discussion of spirituality if it does not lead to mission?

Peter


Dear Peter,

I feel we are not clear in our terminology. The Church does not contain a mixture of Truth and untruth - this is impossible, and is certainly apparent to someone of your background and deep faith.

Andreas is not nor ever has declared upon the decision of God (the Holy Trinity) regarding the salvation of the person(a), be he/she living in remote tribal areas of India or in my own 'one horse town'. He is a disciple of Archimandrite Zachariah, my brother in arms (as it were) and Father Zachariah is a faithful disciple of his Staretz, the late, blessed Archimandrite Sophrony.

It has never been the position of Father Zachariah, nor Father Sophrony nor our mentor and supplicant before the Throne of Christ, St. Silouan the Athonite to judge in this manner. Rather, speaking for myself, I yearn and strive to emulate the holy and blessed praxis of St. Silouan to weep for all humankind; that all may come to a knowledge of His Truth and find Him by the saving Grace of the Holy Spirit.

It is not the position of the Holy Orthodox Church to pronounce upon the temporal or eternal status vis a vis O Theos, of those not gathered within Her embrace, nor does the Church propose the temerity of placing temporal or eternal Judgement upon humankind. Christ alone will measure my repentance, no one else, but because I am a member of the Orthodox Church and pray that I will die in Her embrace, than I hold very clearly within my heart the dire responsibility of what will be asked of me at the Final Judgement.

Certainly the Church in its earthly mission recognizes the dilution of Truth. This is precisely why (to use your example) we are not in Communion with the Methodist Church. Are we saying that Methodists, simply because they are Methodists and holding a dilution of the Truth in their Doctrine are exempt from Salvation. Clearly not. But we do not embrace the dilution, nor the co-existence of truth and falsehood. Neither in the Earthly Mission of the Church, nor in the Heavenly Witness of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Remarkably enough, I know of Hindus, who have never heard of Christ in a public forum, who have spontaneously embraced Him, and due to this suffered banishment from their family, caste, village and have embraced xentia (exile) and have/are wandering on foot the roads of India proclaiming the Good News. And in the vast, vast majority of circumstances they are not embraced, but rather chased, even stoned in the process, from their villages.

(And here I must ask your forgiveness that I have not as yet answered your reguest about the Syrian Orthodox Monastery where I dwelt in India - I will endeavour to fulfill my obligation).

Vis a vis non Christian traditions I will give a simple statement of Father Sophrony to me, one evening in his hermitage. I had been reading to him a letter I had received from a friend living in New York City, who had just attended a speech by the Dalai Lama at the Church of St. John the Divine. In the letter my friend was very excited and spoke (rather wrote) at great length about the person of the Dalai Lama.

Fr. Sophrony's response?

"We love the Dalai Lama, but we do not follow him."

I myself will state without the slightest hesitation before everyone here present, and without the slightest misintention, that I do pray for all humankind and that I will most willingly be cast off and thrown into Hell, that our Lord will have mercy upon His people, and His people are every man, woman and child on this Planet.

May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Most Pure Mother, All the Heavenly Host and all His Saints throughout time be with us as we walk towards the Blessed Uncreated Light of Pascha.

Please remember me in your prayers.

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers in Christ,

An interesting discussion, and I suspect we would all embrace Fr. Seraphim's statement that

It is not the position of the Holy Orthodox Church to pronounce upon the temporal or eternal status vis a vis O Theos, of those not gathered within Her embrace, nor does the Church propose the temerity of placing temporal or eternal Judgement upon humankind. Christ alone will measure my repentance, no one else


Most of the world has heard of Jesus Christ, Andreas says with enviable certainty; well, no doubt that is probably true, but it depends what you mean by 'heard'. My step-daughters have 'heard' of Him, but being brought up in the contemporary UK in an atheist household, and being educated at schools where they were taught nothing about Christianity, except that it was 'one faith among many', I am not sure they have done much more than 'hear'. Indeed, what they have 'heard' does not much dispose them to listen to more.

They have 'heard' about what seems to be an obsession with homosexuality (the media always run stories with this line) and with being judgemental - and with saying that women should not be priests. Knowing nothing of the Faith, this has presented itself to them as the Church being misogynist as well as homophobic. They are both well-educated young women who are at high quality UK Universities, and they are not atypical of their age-group and social class.

They have not 'rejected' Him, they have never been taught anything about Him, and what has been presented about the Faith through the media provides a most unattractive image of it. As they have got to know me, and as they have watched my engagement with the Faith, they have at least been willing to admit that perhaps what they had thought might only be part of the picture.

However, in vast swathes of where I was brought up, in the north of England, Christianity has retreated, at best, to the margins, and Anglican clergymen of my acquiantance will confirm that many of those (few) who come wanting to get married, know next to nothing about Christianity and just want a white wedding with all the trimmings.

When I lived for a while in the US, I was struck by the general level of Church attendance - much higher than here, although admittedly I was in the mid west (good old Missourah). I do think many of us perhaps underestimate the degree to which the UK is no longer in any meaningful sense a Christian country.

My two eldest sons, one of whom is a Baptist pastor and the other of whom is a pillar of his local chapel, are, at 27, usually the youngest people in their respectives Churches, and although they were both, when at University, part of thriving Christian communities of people their own age, they have found it difficult to replicate this in civilian life, so to speak; and, even at University, both of them had very unpleasant experiences with Students Union determined to discriminate against active Christians.

The beam in our own eye, here in the UK, is a massive one, and if we think many young people have 'heard' of the Lord in anything other than the literal sense, then we move in privileged circles.

In Christ,

John

[Lourens]

Fathers, gentle men and women in Christ,

Please forgive if I should try your patience, by saying naive things.

I was taught that I may have boldness to enter the throne room of the Father, and ask the One Who is the Light of men for grace and mercy in the time of need; for light in a time of darkness. And, no matter how ignorant and stupid I was, I would not be considered a fool. Rather, the fool is the one who says, "There is no God."

I am continuously in awe of the great intellect and deep spirituality I have discovered here, and my inadequacy to discuss topics, not only on the same level as other posters, but according to the stern warning about monastic and patristic relevance.. But something deeper compels me to remain, in spite of my ignorance of Orthodoxy, and inability to participate fully. The hallowed halls of monachos beckon me with a spirit not found anywhere else. Is it the irresistible, disciplined charisma of Mr. Steenberg spilling out over the ether? Or is there such a thing as a spirit of Orthodoxy?

Does it draw men?

I would think that in the case of such esteemed and honorable men as Mr. John Charmley, Mr, Peter Farrington, and Mr. Rick Henry, once they have made their valuable contributions to present-day Orthodoxy, they will be revered and honored, not as ex-Anglican, ex-Brethren, and ex-Whatever saints, but as Orthodox men. And rightly so, I suppose, for that is where their journey took them. But we know that it was not Orthodoxy that birthed them as Christians. (*insert smiley*)

It is my current understanding, (unable as I am to comprehend the filoque-dispute), that in the process of salvation, the Father draws a man to Christ; that is, the Spirit baptizes him into Christ. Christ, again, baptizes his own in the Spirit of Holiness; of Truth; of Love. Thus, as a partaker of the divine nature, the Spirit of Christ dwells in him, and he abides in the Spirit of Christ. Walking in the light, he enjoys divine fellowship and is led into all truth. So some come to Orthodoxy. (*Again, insert smiley*)

My point is this: Is there not perhaps a similar process happening in the world, that would bring those who serve God in different religions be brought to a fullness; to a revelation that Jesus Christ is indeed the Lord of all lords; the Master of all masters; the Name given above every other name, so that in His name, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess: "Jesus is Lord."

Andreas Moran has written:

...St Afanasii (Sakharov)...said that the elements of our faith are, in order, faith, repentance, prayer, and good works.

That these elements are present in (non-Christian) religious practice everywhere is no secret. In fact, there is room for the thought that, even there, it is faith that pleases God; that faith may be reckoned to believers as righteousness; and that they may even possess a measure of righteousness that is of works.


One cannot mix truth and falsehood.

Indeed. That is why it is we cannot neglect to develop a true understanding: it is Light that dispels darkness. Our truth must shine forth so real that it will reveal Christ in no uncertain terms. We are to make Him present, exactly there where, as Mr. Moran says, "the gloom to the left and to the right..non-Orthodox beliefs." Our way passes through this world.

Rick Henry wrote:

I wonder if we could get some straight answers [I]where the rubber meets the road.
It is my opinion that when it comes to that place---where Firestone burns MacAdam; General touches the tarmac; and Continental connects the concourse---we should note that it is the feet of him who brings good news that are lovely on the mountains. It is the way his soles leave his prints; the loveliness of soul that impresses with a quality that has never been seen; the spirit-filled words that give life, and the doing of the Word in his walk.

And, here, I am afraid, at the heart of salvation, where the souls of men are at stake, the spiritual practices that will be of use are not those that seem to be the exclusive domain of the few, in monasteries and academies of High Theology (*insert smiley*). It will not be breathing exercises or lengthy quotes that will convert others. No, it will be the golden practice taught and accepted by all, in all traditions, at all times through history.

Does not Christ make it clear that as we do to the least, the helpless, the homeless, and the hopeless, we do to Him; and does Paul not explain that we can do all things spiritual and religious in perfect orthodoxy, yet be nothing, useless, if we do not have love?

Observe then, how the law of love has been propagated:

The term "Golden Rule" and the various wordings of the Golden Rule familiar to most Americans are a relatively recent historical phenomenon, emerging in the 1800s. But the basic idea of the Rule is ancient–variations of the Golden Rule are found across history and in societies around the world.

ANCIENT EGYPT

The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)

ANCIENT GREECE

Golden Rule-like statements are found in ancient Greek literature. In the 700s BCE, Homer wrote:
"I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need." (The Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91)

Herodotus, writing in the 400s BCE, proclaimed:
"...what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself." (The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142)

Plato came close to the Golden Rule in The Laws–when discussing property ownership, he wrote:
"...may I be of a sound mind, and do to others as I would that they should do to me." (The Laws, Book 11, No. 913 in The Dialogues of Plato, 1952, Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books Series, p. 771)

Philosophy professor, Jeffrey Wattles, has written an excellent book on the Golden Rule. In his book entitled The Golden Rule, Wattles maintains that Isocrates, a contemporary of Plato, was responsible for the "burst of golden rule thinking that entered...Greek culture" in the fourth century BCE. (Jeffrey Wattles, The Golden Rule, 1996, Oxford University Press, p. 27)

Isocrates was a philosopher who was very interested in education and like Socrates before him, he established an academy in Athens. In his To Nicocles letter, he advised a person:
"Conduct yourself toward your parents as you would have your children conduct themselves toward you."

In Aegineticus, Isocrates used these words in advising the jurors in a court case:
"give a just verdict, and prove yourselves to be for me such judges as you would want to have for yourselves." (Wattles, p. 31)

EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

Golden Rule expressions can be found in the religious and non-religious literature of East and South Asia.

Confucius is a European way of saying K'ung Fu-tze, or "Master K'ung."
Confucius lived in the 500s BCE and his secular philosophy was put into writing by his disciples after he died. These writings include:
"Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you." (Analects 15:23)

"Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire." (Doctrine of the Mean 13:3)

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself." (Mencius VII A 4)

Taoism developed alongside Confucianism in China and includes this instruction: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-21)

Hinduism is the oldest religion in South Asia, going back more than 3,000 years. Jainism is also an ancient Indian religion. Buddhism developed out of Hinduism about 500 BCE. Sikhism came into existence in the sixteenth century CE as a result of both Hindu and Muslim influences. All these traditions have variations of the Golden Rule.

The following Hindu quotations are from the Mahabharata, written in classical Sanskrit about 300 CE:
"Do naught unto others (that) which would cause you pain if done to you." (Mahabharata, Bk. 5, Ch. 49, v. 57)

"One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself." (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parka 133.8)

From Jainism:
"We should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." (Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara)

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." (Sutrakritanga 1.11.33)

From Buddhism:
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana Varga 5:18)

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" (Samyutta Nikkei v.353)

From Sikhism:
"As you deem yourself, deem others as well; only then will you become a partner in heaven" (Guru Granth Sahib, p.480)

WEST ASIA

In West Asia, the Golden Rule can be traced to Zoroaster's followers. Zoroaster was a philosopher who lived in Persia (present-day Iran) in the 600s BCE. The religion that developed from his teachings is called Zoroastrianism and this faith tradition continues to this day.

Two renditions of the Golden Rule from Zoroastrianism are:
"... that nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5)

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others." (Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29)

HEBREW SCRIPTURES

The Hebrew Scriptures includes similar moral guidelines:
"You shall not take vengeance, or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18, RSV)

Tobit (or Tobias)–written about 200 BCE–was not included in the canon of Hebrew Scriptures, but it is included in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian versions of the Old Testament. The author of Tobit 4:16 says:
"Do to no one what you would not want done to you." (The Jerusalem Bible, p. 528)

In the first Century CE (the time of Jesus) Rabbi Hillel said:
"That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow man." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a)

CHRISTIAN NEW TESTAMENT

In the Christian New Testament, Jesus is quoted as saying:
"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." (Matthew 7:12, RSV)
"And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." (Luke 6:31, RSV)
The unknown authors of Matthew and Luke both wrote their gospels about 80 CE.

ISLAM AND BAHA'I

Later, one finds Golden Rule statements in Islam and the Baha'i religion. From the sacred writings of Islam which came into existence in the 600s CE:

"None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." (No. 13 of Imam al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths)

"That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)

Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i faith in the 1800s CE, said:
"Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself." (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings)

NATIVE AMERICAN

One can find a number of sayings related to the Golden Rule in the Native American tradition. Here is one from the Northern Plains:
"Great Spirit, grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." (Sioux/Lakota/Plains Indians; Wattles, pp. 9, 194)

AFRICAN

One African variation of the Golden Rule is this Ba-Congo saying:
"O man, what you do not like, do not do to your fellows." (Wattles, p. 9)

Compiled by Brant Abrahamson and Fred Smith
The Teachers' Press (Brookfield, Illinois)

Christians ought to get this right. This is the spiritual practice that should rock the world---"See how they love one another, just as Christ loved them!"

Others all have ancient scriptures, fathers and teachers, traditions and rituals, meditations and breathing exercises. Can we show them Christ? Not in theory, but in practice; not in the cathedral, church, or cloister, but in the coffee shop?

That's where I hope to see Brother Rick, and wave to him from the non-smoker's section. (*insert da beeeg smilie*)

Respectfully,

Learner.

[Andreas Moran]

John's post obviously reminds us of our realities, and in one way echoes my own (#73,75). We cannot 'preach the Gospel' to people at large and expect mass interest in and conversion to Orthodox Christianity. What we can do is to be prepared to be witnesses in our own lives and to be ready to have answers for those who ask. I'm reminded of what St Seraphim of Sarov said: 'acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved'. St Theophan said something similar. If those people John knows and I know are seekers of the truth they can find out from us. But we cannot compel them when God Himself will not compel them. After all, people want to be 'free'. This is what the revolutionaries promise, as they did in Russia: 'you'll be free, of Tsar and Church'. Some freedom!

And I did say, 'heard of', not 'heard'! (Sorry for the lawyer's pedantry!)

[John Charmley]

Dear 'Learner', Dear Andreas,

Can I first thank you both for your posts; along with Peter's and Fr. Seraphim's, they help take the discussion in what I hope is a direction that will be of wider interest; I hope that Rick will feel that they are germane to his main theme for this thread.

I am struck by the wisdom and charity that lie in Fr. Seraphim's words, and I suspect that they actually chime with what was being written before that really rather special intervention. I did not think that anyone was saying that one could mix Orthodox teaching with what was not Christian, but rather that, as Learner rather splendidly shows, there are fragmentary glimpses of parts of the Christian truth in other spiritual practices; that seems to me entirely encouraging. The light shines fully in Orthodoxy, but that is not the only place from which its existence might be divined. Newman was correct in writing: 'Lead kindly Light' - and the gloom can seem to encircle us all at times.

I appreciate the lawyerly precision, but think it alters little; here, in a nominally Christian country, there are masses of folk who know next to nothing about the Christian faith. Yet, as I drive to work, I go past three Church of England schools, all of them high in the league tables which measure 'success'; yet none of them pass on the Christian message. This seems, even by English standards, a mite perverse.

I tremble to think that others may look at me and think 'that is what a Christian is like', and can only pray to be more worthy of that huge responsibility. I don't know how it is for you, Andreas, at Essex, and one of your earlier comments made it sound quite encouraging at one level, but where I am, I suspect most of my colleagues think I am slightly cracked in deciding to 'convert'; my former Anglicanism was looked on as a harmless eccentricity, rather like voting Liberal Democrat - something nice people without much interest in politics (or in this case, religion) did. To have become a Roman Catholic would at least have been in line with two of my best friends; but Orthodoxy ...?!

It is part and parcel of the distance that has opened up between intellectual life in academia and the Christian Faith; in its own unique way, this site does something to provide a bridge. Oxford, of course, is famous for being the 'home of lost causes', but I can't help but feel rather pleased that my alma mater should be the place from which this site receives so much inspiration. I always bristled at the notion of 'lost causes' - so it is good to see that, here at least, it is the home of a cause that is never lost.

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As I was reading The Stromata by St. Clement of Alexandria, the following, from chapter 13 of Book 1 leapt out at me in the context of this discussion:

So, then, the barbarian and Hellenic philosophy
has torn off a fragment of eternal truth not from the mythology of
Dionysus, but from the theology of the ever-living Word. And He who
brings again together the separate fragments, and makes them one, will
without peril, be assured, contemplate the perfect Word, the truth.
Later, in chapter 17, St. Clement makes another comment upon which we may wish to ponder:

But among the lies, the false prophets also told some true things. And in reality they prophesied “in an ecstasy,” as the servants of the apostate. And the Shepherd, the angel of repentance, says to Hermas, of the false prophet: “For he speaks some truths. For the devil fills him with his own spirit, if perchance he may be able to cast down any one from what is
right.” All things, therefore, are dispensed from heaven for good, “that by
the Church may be made known the manifold wisdom of God, according to
the eternal foreknowledge, which He purposed in Christ.” Nothing
withstands God: nothing opposes Him: seeing He is Lord and omnipotent.

This seems helpful in illuminating our most recent discussions, and I offer it for thoughts and comments.

In Christ,

John

[Maria Mahoney]

I can recommend this Akathist of Thanksgiving as a daily spiritual practice. It has Beauty and Grace, and touches on the contemplation of inner essences.

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/thanksgiving.htm

Also, available on CD.

Enjoy.....

[Rick H.]

Dear All:

Well, it is the end of a day of long meetings, and I am close to being brain dead right now; but, I want to get my monachos fix before I hit the hay. I'm not like these English and South African guys who can stay razor sharp and type until very late at night and into the next morning. And, since my eyes are open about halfway right now I will just share the words of another as it relates to a personal spiritual practice. We will see how far I can get reproducing this short piece before I have to quit. I think it is very possible that anyone who appreciates the words of Father Raphael (as much as I do) will appreciate the words of this Trappist monk as well:


What is Contemplation?

Contemplation is the highest expression of man's intellectual and spiritual life. It is that life itself, fully awake, fully active, fully aware that it is alive. It is spiritual wonder. It is spontaneous awe at the sacredness of life, of being. It is gratitude for life, for awareness and for being. It is a vivid realization of the fact that life and being in us proceeded from an invisible, transcendent and infinitiely abundant Source. Contemplation is, above all, awareness of the realitiy of that Source. It 'knows' the Source, obscurely, inexplicably, but with a certitude that goes both beyond reason and beyond simple faith. For contemplaition is a kind of spiritual vision to which both reason and faith aspire, by their very nature, because without it they must always remain incomplete. Yet contemplation is not vision because it sees "without seeing" and knows "without knowing." It is a more profound depth of faith, a knowledge too deep to be grasped in images, in words or even in clear concepts. It can be suggested by words, by symbols, but in the very moment of trying to indicate what it knows the contemplative mind takes back what it has said, and denies what it has affirmed. For in contemplation we know by "unknowing." Or, better, we know 'beyond' all knowing or "unknowing."

Poetry, music and art have something in common with the contemplative experience. But contemplation is beyond aesthetic intuition, beyond art, beyond poetry. Indeed, it is also beyond philosophy, beyond speculative theology. It resumes, transcends and fulfills them all, and yet at the same time it seems, in a certain way, to supersede and to deny them all. Contemplation is always beyond our own knowledge, beyond our own light, beyond systems, beyond explanations, beyond discourse, beyond dialogue, beyond our own self. To enter into the realm of contemplation one must in a certain sense die: but this death is in fact the entrance into a higher life. It is a death for the sake of life, which leaves behind all that we can know or treasure as life, as thought, as experience, as joy, as being.

And so contemplation seems to supersede and to discard every other form of intuition and experience--whether in art, in philosophy, in theology, in liturgy or ordinary levels of love and of belief. The rejection is of course only apparent. Contemplation is and must be compatible with all these things, for it is their highest fulfillment. But in the actual experience of contemplation all other experiences are momentarily lost. They "die" to be born again on a higher level of life.

***Well, looks like I didn't make if very far . . .

Good Night,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Father Seraphim,

You wrote:


I myself will state without the slightest hesitation before everyone here present, and without the slightest misintention, that I do pray for all humankind and that I will most willingly be cast off and thrown into Hell, that our Lord will have mercy upon His people, and His people are every man, woman and child on this Planet.


Forgive me for what I am about to write. I see from this your deep love of all but you seem to say that you would willingly go to hell for the salvation of others, and I wonder if you really mean that literally? The Holy Fathers (eg St Theophan) are clear that however much we love our neighbour, we do not prejudice our own salvation for him. The two commandments to love God and our neighbour as ourself are inseparable. We go to hell by sinning. To sin is not to love God. We cannot love our neighbour through sinning since then we do not love God. The Holy Fathers strived all their lives to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit thereby to love their neighbours. So to sin as to go to hell is the opposite of this and cannot help our neighbour.

It might be said that St Paul said much the same as you say: see Romans 9:3: 'For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren'. This passage is dealt with at length by the Holy Fathers (eg St John Chrysostom). It is important to note what comes just before at 8:38-39 where the Apostle says that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. So what St Paul says at 9:3 is impossible. Being impossible, verse 9:3 is a literary form, hyperbole, to show how much he loves his brethren his fellow jews: for such love he could wish the impossible. It makes no sense to wish for the impossible. So the passage cannot be taken literally, and perhaps your passage I quote should be read in this way.

Please forgive me for writing so. I have only paraphrased what I have read.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Father Seraphim,

You wrote:

Forgive me for what I am about to write. I see from this your deep love of all but you seem to say that you would willingly go to hell for the salvation of others, and I wonder if you really mean that literally? The Holy Fathers (eg St Theophan) are clear that however much we love our neighbour, we do not prejudice our own salvation for him. The two commandments to love God and our neighbour as ourself are inseparable. We go to hell by sinning. To sin is not to love God. We cannot love our neighbour through sinning since then we do not love God. The Holy Fathers strived all their lives to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit thereby to love their neighbours. So to sin as to go to hell is the opposite of this and cannot help our neighbour.

It might be said that St Paul said much the same as you say: see Romans 9:3: 'For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren'. This passage is dealt with at length by the Holy Fathers (eg St John Chrysostom). It is important to note what comes just before at 8:38-39 where the Apostle says that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. So what St Paul says at 9:3 is impossible. Being impossible, verse 9:3 is a literary form, hyperbole, to show how much he loves his brethren his fellow jews: for such love he could wish the impossible. It makes no sense to wish for the impossible. So the passage cannot be taken literally, and perhaps your passage I quote should be read in this way.

Please forgive me for writing so. I have only paraphrased what I have read.

In Christ,

Andreas.


Dear Andreas,

I fully expect our Lord to reach the conclusion that Hell will be my final resting place.

To answer you in more or less a systematic way, first citing St. Theophan: I pray only to love my neighbour more. As far as prejudicing my own salvation, please pray for me that this is my concern, and deepest yearning ie. to find salvation in Christ Jesus.

Whether or not Romans 9:3 is impossible is not for me to say. If it makes no sense to wish for the impossible than why is Roman 9:3 included in Holy Scripture?

Can a passage of Scripture: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren...' be simply hyberbole?

If that is your feeling, fine.

I do remember you and your wife in my prayers, and I have benefited greatly from your accounts of Russia and her present reading of the New Martyr (forgive me, I forget his name).

Can I ask one thing Andreas? From your love of Father Sophrony, could you extend me a tiny bit more charity.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Father Seraphim,

It grieves me to think you thought I was not showing charity. On the contrary, I was concerned. I should explain that some time ago, a friend of mine said something similar, and when I spoke about it with Bishop Eirenaios and the Lavra fathers, they put me onto the teaching that we should not, indeed cannot, prejudice our salvation for the love of others. Is there anything in the Holy Fathers which allows to think this way? St Paul's saying at Romans 9:3 being impossible is what commentators say about it.

I am indebted for your prayers.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Rebecca Gabl]

Forgive me for butting in (and for presuming to know anything!), but couldn't one say that, as God is both merciful and just, it's a moot point? (In other words, God wouldn't allow our perdition to be the condition of another's salvation?)

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

It reminds me to be ever thankful that we shall appear before the only Just Judge. His will be done.

For the rest, let me amend my life as I can with the help of my Church and especially my spiritual Father; let me obey the law and the Commandments in spirit as well as in word; let me confess with a truly contrite heart when I fall short (every day?); let me try to walk in His way; and for the rest, I leave it in His hands.

And for daily use? 1 Corinthians 13:1

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
and, with especial relevance to Fr. Seraphim's moving post:
1 Corinthians 13:12-13

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. [NKJV]
All three, but especially the last, I read in what Fr. Seraphim writes here.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

It reminds me to be ever thankful that we shall appear before the only Just Judge. His will be done.



from the:


'Akathist to the Mother of God of the Burning Bush'

...


Ikos I

O Virgin of the age without evening,
O holy Mother of the Light,
Hearken unto us, slaves of sin,
Unworthy offspring of the mire.
Most sweet and good, most Holy Virgin,
The key of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Release us from the curse's bolt's,
Open for us the heavenward way,
That having received the longed-for revelation,
The secret of the beloved Bridegroom,
We may also offer praises to Thee,
Like unto Moses who, putting off his sandals,
And turning his face towards the flame of the bush
That burned with grace, cried out in the dusk:

Rejoice, fulgent Flower of an unconsumed bush!
Rejoice, Christian Dew through which God sprouts forth on earth!
Rejoice, burning Imprint of fire from heaven!
Rejoice, Tear which melts the interior frost!
Rejoice, budding Staff of the pilgrim to the heart!
Rejoice, Freshet brimming in the inner desert!
Rejoice, glowing Signet set in the soul's depths!
Rejoice, eighth Day of the Kingdom within!
Rejoice, Tradition of the joy to come!
Rejoice, Wonder received in a marvelling spirit!

Rejoice, O Bride, Mother of continual prayer!

selection composed by:

The Romanian New-Martyr Parinte Daniel (the poet Sandu Tudor)

[Paul Cowan]

Dear John:


It reminds me to be ever thankful that we shall appear before the only Just Judge. His will be done.

If I may speak for Fr. Seraphim in my own limitations, I too feel as he does about this. I pray and quake because of this quote. Woe is me to appear before this Just Judge. I will surely be burned in Hell!

God is merciful, Yes. He is also Just. I pray he is not Just with me, but only merciful. Otherwise, I have no hope of salvation. Pray for me THE sinner. The more I come to know and fear the love of God, the more I spend in the depths of hell, yet despair not.

Paul

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

from the:

'Akathist to the Mother of God of the Burning Bush'
...

Ikos I

O Virgin of the age without evening,
O holy Mother of the Light,
Hearken unto us, slaves of sin,
Unworthy offspring of the mire.

Rejoice, O Bride, Mother of continual prayer!

selection composed by:

The Romanian New-Martyr Parinte Daniel (the poet Sandu Tudor)

I am grateful this composition of Father Daniel was posted. For me the Mother of God is an especial comforter in time of need.

This day was passed in illness and also I was saddened that somehow misunderstanding had suddenly appeared where least expected.

It was on the Holy Mountain, the Garden of the Virgin Mary (To Perivoli tis Panagias) that I must confess the Mother of God became very, very real to me. The entire Mountain whether it be the Monasteries, or the Sketes, Kellies, Hermitages, or even walking alone in the resplendent nature, makes Her so very vivid, present, alive and real.

Also, I found true succour in praying to Her. She is everywhere on the Holy Mountain. And not just the countless miracle working Icons, as marvellous and ancient as they are, but in the faces of the elder monks - there is a glint in the eye - a surety that She is a breath away.

How marvellous Orthodoxy - such an ineffable gift to Humankind.

[Rick H.]

Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you very much for your last two responses on this thread! It is like I can 'hear' you and 'see' you in these two posts.

And, on a side NOTE * * * , I know that I am not the President of Monachos, and nobody died and made me boss . . . or, however the saying goes; but, I wonder if any interested could focus on a topic that I have been trying to introduce here for some time now. We really do have the perfect opportunity now--courtesy of Father Raphael's pen, in fact, if what he has offered up doesn't get us going now, I think we are going to have to find some fresh blood. I tried a time or two on the previous A.O. thread, but we kept going in different directions. And, you guessed it, I am hoping for a consideration of "A Personal Spiritual Practice" here. And, I don't need to be reminded of my own words calling for an end to compartmentalization; however, I wonder if some of the recent conversation here could possibly be better discussed in the An American Orthodoxy? thread. Regardless of the wisdom or lack of it, part of my thinking in establishing this thread was that we might possibly consider more of the anthropological aspects, or if you will allow me to use the term 'individual' aspects of the Life in Christ. And, with that in mind, I think it is possible that the sociological aspects or if I may use the term "corporate" aspects of the Body of Christ might be better suited for another discussion on the A. O. thread (which coincidently there is a post there from yesterday which could make this happen with great speed I think).

And, this is *not* to say that Father Raphael is the only one who has made a contribution that is on topic here, because he is clearly not the only one. But, I guess we will see . . . and, I think I will just hit the send button on this one now in the hope that it will serve as a transitional posting to take us back to the topic of:


"A Personal Spiritual Practice"

Father Raphael, I hope that you can stay tuned in here, because I will be coming back to your posts later today God willing. I am personally benefiting in a great way here, and I am sure that I am not the only one at the present (or in the future) who is being ministered to.


As Bartels and James used to say, "Thank you for your support."

Peace,

Rick

"Have faith in God, but tie your camel at night"

[Rick H.]

Agape!

Dear Father Raphael,

In this thread on 2/22/07 you wrote two very high octane pieces. One in response to me, and one in response to Peter (which included additional insights to me). And, I do not want to embarrass you, but I have to say, among other things, that today, I am still feasting on what has been said in these two posts. And, I don't know how this will be perceived by you in the Russian tradition, and for that matter, I don't even know how this is received in 'my' Greek tradition; however, after reading these, in all sincerity, I bow to you.

I know that I kid around at times (sometimes too much), but I am dead serious when I say, there is somewhat of a struggle going on in me now to not just take these two pieces and put them in my case, and turn out the lights here, and close up shop for good. Hopefully, I am not misunderstanding what is being said here, but, from my point of view this is clearly, without a doubt, "wisdom from above." And, it is like I have always hoped it would be in the reams and reams of paper, and thousands of books, and other articles and sources that I have poured through during the last fifteen years of my search for answers. I always hoped that I would just open up the book or whatever and there it would be--The Answer that I was looking for. And, I feel like this is the case now. And, this is why I feel somewhat like tucking it under my arm and running away . . .but, possibly, I should not just take it and run out of the stadium, and through the parking lot, and into the next county without making sure I am understanding this correctly. But, on the other hand, in spite of what I have said about shining bright lights on certain things, I don't want to cheapen this by taking it apart (or for that matter possibly cause you any personal grief from others because of what is being said that may make others uncomfortable when it is carried to its logical end). So, I don't know. Mixed emotions. I am a little tired right now, hopefully some of this makes sense.

There is such a beautiful and good, heavenly harmony in which your thought units are presented both in the positive and the negative but at the same time transcend all dualism just as the Holy Trinity transcends all dualistic thought and affirmations and negations. Whereby, if one EITHER merely focuses on what is presented positively in your writing, OR merely focuses on what is presented negatively in your writing then all is lost. And, then with light speed, we are back to the "Little Rascals" 'monachos' orthodoxy/mentality here viz. when "Spanky" and "Alfalfa" are going back and forth debating something by means of saying "Is So!" . . ."Is Not!" . . . "Is So! . . . "Is Not!" . . . "Is So! . . ."Is Not!" . . . until one of them gets tired, or they agree to disagree.

There is so much here. And, the individual thought units need to read in their entirety to have any chance of making sense. But, I am thinking if I move through them and strip out the negative, then I could confirm what I think you are saying here. But, I will leave it up to you. Please let me know, if I have your permission to do this. I think I would like to take this apart and examine it (dokimaso: 'prove, try, examine for the purpose of finding it approved') and then put it back togehter just as you have it here with no changes or modifications, but only with your permission. So, out of respect for you, please let me know to go ahead and examine away, or to hold off. And, in the meantime, I will re-post what are the most meaningful parts (to me) of what has been said below:




RESPONSE TO RICK:

The difference I think Rick is because we are talking about finding Christ whereas the 'good man' be he Zen Buddhist or whatever is actually pursuing a natural light for better or worse. Perhaps it's wrong to say that at some point along the way those who pursue this natural light are always on the wrong track. But ultimately in Christian terms we know this path is not correct because it must lead somewhere eventually- and that can only be either Christ or the false light of darkness.

Thus in our analysis of those pursuing a path outside of Christ there must be an ambiguity; the 'good man' or St Paul's natural man could be on a good path in terms of the direction it may be going. But it is also wrong since it will always be incomplete & unfulfilled as long as Christ is not consciously part of this path.

I think that daily as Christians we are in this tension point in regards to the world. We see good [outside the church] around us and wish to acknowledge it- it's not of no worth. But yet outside of Christ this good is incomplete and even boringly tedious if it remains in its own 'enlightened' state. And how many examples of such enlightenment have we seen in our times which gradually revealed themselves as total delusion?

The thing of it Rick is that for all of our charity we still do know in Christ that the point of all of this is to break the egg shell of sin & death and find life & freedom. Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even. But only in Christ will he begin to crack the one shell that really waits breaking from all of us.

But the way this happens between the natural man and the person being remade in Christ is actually so different. Whether we see it or not the natural man only has a finite point to head for- and that's probably why all natural spiritualities are drawn towards using a method to achieve their end.

But within the Church there is no 'method' short of continually dying to ourselves over & over again so that every thought & impulse are purified in the fire of Christ's grace and are handed back to us remade. Techniques also must follow this path, whether these be techniques for inner prayer, for how to enter the church properly or for how to sing the service. More often than not these become idols for us, methods rather than means of salvation. So just like the practicer of the Jesus prayer who is continually tried by Christ so that he ends up in a very different place than where he began we too with every method we engage in will find ourselves humbled over & over again by the circumstances which Christ allows so that we gradually allow Him into our lives and not just the things of human creation.

As it says in the Cherubic Hymn: "Lay aside All Earthly cares." I wonder if we pay enough attention to those words we sing so frequently. All cares; all earthly endeavors, all plans, all methods, and it doesn't even matter that they are good. Lay it all aside to find Christ.


RESPONSE TO PETER:

In a way this brings up a point I was thinking about when I earlier replied to Rick . . .

Here is where I can get to the point I wanted to add to my post to Rick. We must beware that when we speak of universal humanity in relation to the Church of only stopping at one point in their lives. Thus the Zen Buddhist doing his thing hopefully in the best way he knows but yet who does not know Christ. Truly if we stop at this point and force a clear answer then either all truths are equal or else the poor Zen Buddhist is damned.

But I would say that we cannot stop at this one point of a person's life since precisely it leaves out the cosmic dimension of Christ's offering of salvation to mankind & creation. And by cosmic we do not at all mean relative. Rather we mean that all things are moving to meet their fulfillment, ie their telos, in Christ, Who is the Alpha & Omega of all things.

Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him. Or to say it another way at some point for all things all that will be left is Christ and His Body. And at that point each will clearly make his/her choice, but a choice which has consistency with the choices made previously in their lives.

It's in the above context that I spoke before of there being a purposeful tension in how we speak of good outside of the Church. This tension must consciously be there not only to not force ourselves into one of two extreme positions. Really I think the deeper reason is that we know that the kind of limitedness which was caused by the Fall has not yet reached the portal where it can achieve its potential fulfillment in the culmination of time.

However we look at this issue of good outside of the Church- and it is so important precisely now when so much for both very good and very bad reasons is outside the Church- our answer must not deny either the limitedness still present in our world nor must it deny the fact that all things will one day meet the point of their fulfillment. Here we must keep walking this tight rope on both counts or else there results a very deep betrayal of our witness to the created nature.

In any case, right now there cannot be complete clarity about good outside of the Church essentially because good cannot really be separated from the fulfillment of all things in Christ.




In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Sure Rick, go ahead! It would be interesting to see someone else's perspective on what I was trying to get across.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mourad Mankarios]

I can recommend this Akathist of Thanksgiving as a daily spiritual practice. It has Beauty and Grace, and touches on the contemplation of inner essences.

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/thanksgiving.htm

Also, available on CD.

Enjoy.....

Maria, this has got to be one of the most beautiful prayers I've ever read and I'll be sure to include it in my daily prayers. Thank you so much for sharing this. Are there any other prayers you have found to be similarly moving?

[Rick H.]

Towards a Christian Anthropology


Sure Rick, go ahead! It would be interesting to see someone else's perspective on what I was trying to get across.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Dear Father Raphael and All,

Thanks. I appreciate very much what you have written about "a path outside of Christ" and "'good' outside the Church" (as well as an honest 'forcing' of a conclusion about 'truths' as it relates to the end of these things) in the following:



But ultimately in Christian terms we know this path [a path outside of Christ] is not correct because it must lead somewhere eventually- and that can only be either Christ or the false light of darkness.



But it [a path outside of Christ] is also wrong since it will always be incomplete & unfulfilled as long as Christ is not consciously part of this path.



And how many examples of such enlightenment [good outside the Church] have we seen in our times which gradually revealed themselves as total delusion?



But only in Christ will he [the 'good' Zen Buddhist'] begin to crack the one shell that really waits breaking from all of us.



We must beware that when we speak of universal humanity in relation to the Church of only stopping at one point in their lives. Thus the Zen Buddhist doing his thing hopefully in the best way he knows but yet who does not know Christ. Truly if we stop at this point and force a clear answer then either all truths are equal or else the poor Zen Buddhist is damned.



Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him. Or to say it another way at some point for all things all that will be left is Christ and His Body. And at that point each will clearly make his/her choice, but a choice which has consistency with the choices made previously in their lives.


And, In the following, I also especially appreciate very much what you have written about the "natural light" and the "natural man--'the psuchikos man!'" that St. Paul wrote about: in relation to the "'good' man pursuing the path outside of Christ". . . (as well as the honest assessment of both the potential for real accomplishments in the here and now, and the consideration of the possible ends of these in the here after, which results in an irenic non-condemnation of all on this path, allowing room for a 'theology of hope') . . . especially, as it regards the 'cracking of other shells which are real' in relation to the 'good' psuchikos man, my original question about the "difference" is answered with great precision, AND I have moved beyond a point that has been blocking me for over ten years as it relates to a philosophy of Christian living based on what Paul is saying to the Corinthians about pneumatikos man and sarkikos man in relation to psuchikos man!!! Again, we must transcend the unhelpful dualisitic thinking when we consider such pneumatikos words and pneumatikos concepts as these three! When it comes to 'how' one lives the Life in Christ this is IT. But, I'm getting too far ahead here and I don't want to be misunderstood . . . this for later . . . let's finish taking this apart and examining what is being said:



Perhaps it's wrong to say that at some point along the way those who pursue this natural light [the Zen Buddhist or whoever] are always on the wrong track.



. . . the 'good man' or St Paul's natural man [those pursuing a path outside of Christ] could be on a good path in terms of the direction it may be going.



We see good [outside the church] around us and wish to acknowledge it- it's not of no worth.



Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even.


So, so far we have considered what we do believe, as well as what we may hope; and we have considered what we allow room for and what we do not allow room for. But, now, let's consider what is being said about such things and ways of knowing, such as "two extreme positions" and a "tension" that is held between the two, and the degree of "clarity" that we can have about the above as it relates to a 'teleological' approach as it relates to "the fulfillment of all things in Christ." This is so good! If any readers do not understand what one of these words means that is being used, please pick up a dictionary and find out. This is pure gold here. Or, use the internet and type in the word that you do not understand along with the word "definition" and then you will know in about five seconds what it means. The Greek words will take longer, but when others here use a word or a phrase that I do not understand, I look it up, and I am usually glad that I did. But, back to business here, let's go for the kill shot now in the following also by Father Raphael:


And, I realize that this is enough for now . . . there is too much here in Father Raphael's writing to be dealt with in one post. It would be unwise to try. We are forced back into the dreaded "installment mode." This cannot be taken in in one big bite, there will not be any chewing or swallowing or digestion if it is attempted. There will only be a choking and a gagging and a spitting out on the floor. So, I will make another installment later today or tomorrow God willling. Nope, shoot! . . . I just remembered I am gone again this weekend. Man! why is it the good posts from others and the good things always happen right when I have to go :( :( :( Well, we will see, God willing, we will continue without interuption here; but, in the meantime we have a very good start I think as it relates to both the Life in Christ and a personal spiritual practice. The real world is really starting to get in the way of my monachos world ;)

In Christ,
Rick

PS Maria, I agree fully with Mourad--thanks very much! "Mourad" . . . "Mourad Mankarios!" . . . that's a tough sounding name. If I could make friends with Mourad, then when somebody tries to give me a hard time I could say, Crikey! Don't mess with me or I'll get Mourad after you! Okay, I know . . . break time! :)


crikey
exclamation

1. dated, slang
An expression of astonishment.

[Robert Hegwood]

To comment briefly on Rick's post that seemed to stir things up a bit, if I am not mistaken, and if I have not misremembered what I read concerning the life of St. Silouan as told by Elder Sophrony that the spiritual practices of other religions seem more like that of Orthodoxy the closer the exercise of those practices are rooted in our common experience as fallen humans. Thus the asceticism of a hindu guru might have a lot in common pragmatically with that of an Orthodox monk...the quiet meditation of a Zen practitioner likewise. Given the common illness of man it is not to be wondered at if man has discovered some common ways across many cultures to ameliorate the coarser expressions of the present human condition. A house is a house be it built on sand or stone...but it is the storm that prove the house's foundations, and if the foundations fail, so does the house. So I think it fair to say, in some of these other systems some pragmatic good can be demonstrated in their various disciplines that seek to subdue and prune the superfulities of human passions. And that they look much the same because they deal with so much of the same basic territory.

But beyond this basic territory...this common tilling of field as it were there the substantive differences begin to tell...for once the soil is prepared it will receive whatever seed is planted in it. And it is here the practice and mindset of Orthodox ascetics more and more diverge from that of other faiths. And most if not all of these other systems find their way to see some of man as he is even in fallen splendor...this still radient if marred image of God and mistake it for the true light of God shining in the illumined heart. The well guided Orthodox ascetic is not permitted to be decieved by this, not to mistake it for anything other than what it is, and thus repentance is redoubled for now the Orthodox ascetic begins to understand how terrible and profound the fall was...for if this is the broken image...what then is that image restored...and what is the prototype from who it was taken? And in holy dread they root themselves more firmly in prayer seeing both the great danger and the great tempation of their own being...at least I gather that it is something like this...and if they pass though this then God in His time choses to visit them and kindle the lamp of the Spirit more manifestly in their hearts.

And if I am wrong...those who know better do correct me.

[Andreas Moran]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, Father Sophrony was emphatic that eastern mystical pratices have nothing in common with Orthodoxy.

[Peter Farrington]

But St Clement of Alexandria says differently, as has been posted here. As do many other Fathers.

So surely we should exercise some hesitancy in being quite so certain.

If Father Sophrony felt rightly that he had wasted time in his life looking for the light where it was not so bright then it is surely understandable that he should be more negative than others in regard to the natural light God mercifully grants even to those who have not heard the Gospel. But there is a difference between saying that a Christian wastes his time looking for the light in the East when it is brightest where he already is, and saying that those who are looking for the light in the East cannot find any trace of the light as they seek Him whom they do not yet know.

Peter

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Andreas,

So far as I know you are correct concerning Elder Sophrony's estimation of eastern religous practices. I am not saying they are the same. Their heart and ulitmate end is different but where the disciplines necessary to pursue those ends must deal with the same proclivities of fallen human nature similar habits of disciple should be expected. Going within for the Buddhist might be something ultimately very different for the Orthodox monastic, but for both the going within cannot be accomplish with a noisy and distracted mind. Techniques then that are good as stilling a noisy mind will look similar for both. But that is not the end of the matter. And it is here where the differences between Orthodox practice and thought and eastern religious practice and thought began to manifestly diverge...but most people don't examine things that far. Those things that are closely related to our common humanity are going to look a lot alike; those things that are moving toward the life in and revelation of Christ will more and more be shown as different.

Wheat and tares when they sprout look a lot alike...and they are related...but as they grow it becomes apparent they are not the same and have different roots.

[Lourens]

Dear Readers,

I have found seraphim98's contributions here most helpful, and I believe a valuable insight has been added to this discussion.

From our collective, common fallenness (separation from God), man has, in an attempt to link up to God, developed similar practices, for though fallen, men are men, and share a spiritual likeness derived from their creation as men.

These attempts, "to engage in deep or serious reflection; to empty the mind of thoughts and fix the attention on one matter, for religious reasons;" or "the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that the self may recognize its distinction from them and attain liberation and union with God," are attempts to bridge the divide and bind (yoke) us to the divine. (The quotes are dictionary definitions of meditation, and yoga.)

Fine. I understand that these practices, even though somewhat similar in completely different traditions, are simply man's attempt God-ward, and does not secure the ultimate liberation or salvation from our common fallenness.

Our salvation is from the Lord.

It is God's deliverance of grace man-ward, that ultimately binds him to God; makes him a partaker of the divine nature. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

This salvation in Christ came, however, not in excellent performances of practices spiritual, but through repentance and belief (practices spiritual, but less mystical).

I just do not comprehend how practices, formerly worthless to secure the ultimate light of salvation, suddenly become the very practices needed to secure the ultimate (vision of God.) Of course, they only can, if Christ is in them, and the practitioner is in Christ.

But, is it really the repentant, fallen man, who brings Christ (form outside) into spiritual practices (after having done all the right things outside of these practices), or was He there all along, present in them all the time, but simply waiting for a confession of faith from the one seeking Him through such practices?

Respectfully begging forgiveness for my ignorance,

Learner.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Least One,

Thank you for a very interesting post. I think you ask some good questions.

And I am still let wondering whether the prayers of my Hindu shopkeeper neighbour are heard by God when he prays for a blessing on me and my family and on the world. Is he merely deluded? Is he only addressing demons? Or does God see the spark of divine life in him, his yearning even without comprehension, and hear him?

I don't know? But if this Hindu is praying for me every day for my good then I am going to be pretty hesitant to say that he is irremedially steeped in error and darkness and without the faintest glimmer of light in his heart, because I know that illuminated as I am, I am not praying for him every day.

This morning in my devotions I read a passage from Amma Theodora about fasting, vigils and silence. She describes the demons saying that they weren't cast out by fasters, because they don't eat at all. They were not cast out by those who keep vigils, because they do not sleep at all. Nor were they cast out by those in solitiude because they inhabit the desert places. But they are cast out by humility. For myself I need to be a bit more humble about other people and their spiritual pilgrimages. I know that God granted me light enough for the journey when I was outside Orthodoxy, and I have confidence that He grants all men light enough for the journey.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

Rick sums up some points:




But ultimately in Christian terms we know this path [a path outside of Christ] is not correct because it must lead somewhere eventually- and that can only be either Christ or the false light of darkness.



And how many examples of such enlightenment [good outside the Church] have we seen in our times which gradually revealed themselves as total delusion?



But only in Christ will he [the 'good' Zen Buddhist'] begin to crack the one shell that really waits breaking from all of us.

...


Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him....



And then Rick comments on the above list




Perhaps it's wrong to say that at some point along the way those who pursue this natural light [the Zen Buddhist or whoever] are always on the wrong track.



. . . the 'good man' or St Paul's natural man [those pursuing a path outside of Christ] could be on a good path in terms of the direction it may be going.



We see good [outside the church] around us and wish to acknowledge it- it's not of no worth.



Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even.




I really think that Rick is wrong here. While "a path outside of Christ" might fora time parallel the path of salvation, it is extremely important to remember that it is NOT the path of salvation and thus leads, eventually, away from Christ.

One of the things that leads away from Christ in a parallel path is even the slightest deviation from the Christiain practice. Even if we have similar looking or sounding practices, the goals are all wrong and the slight deviation creates in us, or preserves in us, some flaw that in Christ is overcome. We can certainly point out to those on a parallel path the similarities and then the superiority of the Christian path, but never should we ourselves venture onto the parallel path, for then we are in extreme danger of being swept away.

Rick suggests that at some point the follower of the parallel path may somehow adopt the path of salvation if only we do not reject his path but point out the similarities. This is somewhat true - but not entirely. Certainly a "crisis" will come and the follower of the parallel path will be faced with a choice to continue in their path or to follow Christ - but expreience has told me that the more we "validate" their original path, the more difficult that choice is and the more likely they will continue on the parallel path, even when it swerves away from Christ.

The goal of the Christian life, according to St Seraphim is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, and all these "things" we do are simply the means by which we acquire the Holy Spirit. But it is equally clear from the fathers that whatever is done outside the Chruch - even if it is "Christian" in form - is of no spiritual value. It does not acquire for us the Holy Spirit. Thus a philanthropist might be renknowned for his charitable work giving thousands, millions, billions of dollars (ok, or pounds or whatever) to the poor - but it is of no spiritual effect if it is outside the Church. OTOH, the Christian who gives even a few cents out of the love of God - for him that action brings to him the transforming grace of the Holy Spirit.

Just because something looks like Orthodox Christianity on the outside - unless it has its source within the Body of Christ, it is worthless - and indeed less than worthless, it leads too easily to deception, so that we think we are doing something spiritually worthwhile, when in fact we are not.

Can we acknowledge that a person is doing something that is similar to us - certainly. Can we agree that when the poor are cared for it is a good thing - of course. But can we equate non-Christian practices, even when they appear outwardly identical with the life of the Church, with that life - no we cannot and to do so is to perpetuate the deception in others and so hasten their departure from Christ.

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

Can we acknowledge that a person is doing something that is similar to us - certainly. Can we agree that when the poor are cared for it is a good thing - of course. But can we equate non-Christian practices, even when they appear outwardly identical with the life of the Church, with that life - no we cannot and to do so is to perpetuate the deception in others and so hasten their departure from Christ.

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David,

I feel sure that we all, including Rick, would agree with this formulation; you state eloquently what the Church has always taught.

It would seem natural that in the long period of human history before the Word was made Flesh, holy men from all cultures should, in their spiritual strivings, have seen glimpses of the One True God - partial, fragmented and imperfect ones, but nonetheless, parts the greater whole.

The Incarnation changes everything. Then, those to whom the words of the Apostles are brought can receive the fullness of the saving word of God; the Incarnate Word brings the full revelation, and the new covenant; if we will follow in His steps, with Grace, we shall be saved.

Those to whom the Word has not come continue to strive in the darkness, and they continue to have the partial glimpses which have always been there for those who strive but do not have the Gospel. It is not that their way is parallel to the Gospel way, it is a fragment of the light; but like any small candle in the dark, it does not give the illumination of the uncreated Light.

That is why one of our duties is to fulfil the great commission given us by Our Lord - so that we can bring the Light to those who dwell in darkness - total or partial.

That is why there is much wisdom in what you write Father when you say:

Rick suggests that at some point the follower of the parallel path may somehow adopt the path of salvation if only we do not reject his path but point out the similarities. This is somewhat true - but not entirely. Certainly a "crisis" will come and the follower of the parallel path will be faced with a choice to continue in their path or to follow Christ - but expreience has told me that the more we "validate" their original path, the more difficult that choice is and the more likely they will continue on the parallel path, even when it swerves away from Christ.

We are not rejecting the shafts of light they have received, indeed, we welcome that partial illumination; but when they have the chance to receive the full Light, we urge them to accept it.

It is the same, I suspect, with secularists. They can be very 'good' people, and they can do much that is 'good', as you say Father, but that does not equate to what Christians must do in order to be saved; although of course, if as Christians, we do so as part of our attempt to walk in His way, that's a different matter.

So, I shall await what Rick says with interest, since I suspect you are not really saying very different things.

In Christ,

John

[Father David Moser]

But, is it really the repentant, fallen man, who brings Christ

Here is the key! It is the repentant man who brings Christ into the fallen life. Repentance is the key. The Forerunner did not entreat people to meditate, but to repent. The desert fathers went out in the desert, not to find God, but to escape from temptation and repent. St Mary of Egypt ascended to the spiritual heights because she repented.

So forget meditation, contemplation and all that other stuff and simply repent, weep for your sins, cry before God because of your weakness. This is the way to holiness, this is the way to ascend the spiritual heights. The ascetic and spiritual fathers speak of wonderful things, but they did not begin to approach such heights without profound and prolonged repentance first.




O Jesus, having yielded to irrational pleasures, I have bome irrational, O my Jesus, and wretch that I am, I have truly become like unto the beasts, O my Savior. Wherefore, O Jesus, deliver me from irrationality.

O Christ Jesus, ten thusand times have I, tha pssionate one, promised Thee repentance, O my Jesus, but wreth that I am, I lied. Wherefore, I cry o Thee, my Jesus; Enlighten my soul which remaineth unfeeling.

Having fallen O Jesus, into the hands of the soul-corruptin theives, I have beens tipped now of my divinely-woven garment, O my Jesus, and I am lying all bruised with wounds. O my Christ, do Thou pour on me oil and wine.

From the canons for Holy Communion - Odes 7&8

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There are two realities to tie together. Otherwise we fall into one of two mistakes each just as serious as the other.

One of these realities is that there is the Body of Christ wherein is found Truth Incarnate.

The other is that all that is good & beautiful must also be a reflection of Christ's Truth.

The Holy Frs struggled with these two constantly and often stressed one over the other according to circumstance.

In terms of this discussion however it is important to keep in mind that the only reason these two occur is due to the reality of the Fall. Without this all would be within the Body of Christ or at least consciously moving towards this in terms of deification (I'm thinking of St Irenaeus' presentation of Adam & Eve in Paradise; ie before the Fall, being spiritually immature and being called to grow in Christ).

This state of being outside the Church however is paradoxical or ambiguous because it is not simply a state of perdition as of yet. In other words being outside the Church at this point does not literally or necessarily equal hell.

Why not? Because we always have to keep truth within the scope of the inner dynamic which all nature and especially humanity have as part of their nature in the first place.

In other words now is not the culmination of Time in Christ when all that will be left is the Light of Christ's Truth and all of creation with humanity standing before Him.

Separation can definitely be one of the images of hell. This separation is also however, and often in an inseparable way, an image equally as powerful of man's intense longing for God & of his need to continually cast himself in faith upon God's mercy no matter what hell he may find himself in. Read St John Climacos for powerful statements of this paradox of heaven & hell.

Separation then is a room with two doors in it and not only one. And ultimately we all are in it.

Which door we pick however is yet to be seen.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Rick sums up some points:


Quotation:
Originally Posted by Rick Henry
But ultimately in Christian terms we know this path [a path outside of Christ] is not correct because it must lead somewhere eventually- and that can only be either Christ or the false light of darkness.
And how many examples of such enlightenment [good outside the Church] have we seen in our times which gradually revealed themselves as total delusion?
But only in Christ will he [the 'good' Zen Buddhist'] begin to crack the one shell that really waits breaking from all of us.
...

Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him....


And then Rick comments on the above list


Quotation:
Perhaps it's wrong to say that at some point along the way those who pursue this natural light [the Zen Buddhist or whoever] are always on the wrong track.
. . . the 'good man' or St Paul's natural man [those pursuing a path outside of Christ] could be on a good path in terms of the direction it may be going.
We see good [outside the church] around us and wish to acknowledge it- it's not of no worth.
Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even.


I really think that Rick is wrong here. While "a path outside of Christ" might fora time parallel the path of salvation, it is extremely important to remember that it is NOT the path of salvation and thus leads, eventually, away from Christ.



Dear Father David,

Thank you very much for your contributions here. It is very good to have your input and insights on this topic. And, I have been in meetings all day today and am a little tired in the eyes right now. So, please pardon me if I am typing when I should be sleeping :) But, I am wondering if you are aware that the quotes "in blue" [above] that you have placed in your post are not my words, but they are direct quotes from Father Raphael's recent post in this thread? I inserted the parenthetical expressions to show the reader his original context, but even these are his words. I am attempting to first outline what he has said (breaking it apart into what is presented positively and then negatively, and examine his conclusion). And, after I do this, then I want to interact with what is being said and interject my thoughts on this (after I'm sure that I am understanding Father Raphael correctly). If possible please let me know so that I will not make a response that is off the mark when I get time, hopefully this weekend. I know that it is not always real clear who said what at times, when multiple quoting takes place, here on monachos, so I just want to double check with you. Again, thanks very much for the contributions here, it is very good to have your input. There have been so many great posts here in the past day or so, I am looking forward to picking up with this very much--this is good!

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. David,

Following your moving post on the primacy of repentance in beginning the Christian life, the following from St. Isaac the Syrian seems germane:

Repentance is given to man as grace after grace, for repentance is a second regeneration by God. That of which we have received an earnest by baptism, we receive as a gift by means of repentance. Repentance is the door of mercy, opened to those who seek it. By this door we enter into the mercy of God, and apart from this entrance we shall not find mercy.

As Our Lord tells us in Matthew 9:13:

13 But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
or the same in Mark 2:17:

17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
or, more sombrely in Luke 13:3:

3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Linear over Cyclic?


Yes John--"Grace after Grace"

Very good! Thank you for the quote by St. Issac. And, when we consider such things as the primacy of repentance, or repentance as the first rung of a ladder to be climbed or other systematic approaches leading one to the heart of salvation, it causes me to wonder. I struggle with this personally. We hear it said that repentance is one side of a coin and that something else is on the other side of the coin. But, in this case repentance loses its primacy doesn't it? Becuase there are two sides to a coin aren't there? Some may consider faith and works and grace or other things and present them as being found on the other side of the coin too. But, hear again, how many sides does a coin have so this way of thinking soon finds a diminished value in conversations such as these. And, it is not as if repentance is a once for all thing is it?

And, before I get back to work with Father Raphael's post from last month (that I seem to be still, memorized by today), I would like to acknowledge these recent posts on repentance as it relates to the bigger picture that we are dealing with here. As it relates to a personal spiritual practice. And, more specifically, what I mean is in many of the quotes that have been placed in most of threads here at monachos we see primarily a very systematic approach in the form of step #1, step #2, step #3. Or, we see the three kinds of this, or the eight kinds of that. We see a ladder to be climbed one step at a time. We see a high degree of systematic cataphaticism. And, this is because we see a high degree of these things in the writings of the early church Fathers.

But, why is it that we do not see many posts here and much discussion in the same proportion as it relates to the high degree of non-systematic and apophatic writings/teachings of the same Fathers? This is mind boggling to me how the one is emphasized almost to the exclusion of the other when we see an equally high degree of both presented in the History of Christian Thought! Forget the individual "rungs" so to speak for just a minute, why are the models--such as ladders--given primacy over the paradigms of Christian living that are more cyclic. Why the linear over the cyclic? Especially as it relates to an apophatic Christocentrism! As I have said, this is mind boggling to me. And, what is being said here is very applicable to Maria's "Contemplative" thread.

I am very glad that we have moved beyond such things as faulty reasoning in this thread, as well as the previous thread, which have included such things as appeal to misleading authority, a logical fallacy:guilt by association, and factual errors. At times I have felt like we are dealing with a "fast facts" mentality here :) Anyone who has ever read such 'works' as "Fast Facts on False Teachings," will know what I mean. However, I wish we could also move beyond such limitations as a linear way of thinking as it relates to such things as we are discussing at the present. This is a very special place. I have learned and grown so much here. Possibly, this is why we all keep coming back. This is a unique place. May God continue to bless our discussions here at monachos.net as well as those who participate in her.

In Christ,
Rick

[Lourens]

Mr. Rick Henry expressed some concerns about assigning repentance a fixed place, either as one side of a coin, or the first step in a ladder:


when we consider such things as the primacy of repentance, or repentance as the first rung of a ladder to be climbed or other systematic approaches leading one to the heart of salvation, it causes me to wonder.

I struggle with this personally. We hear it said that repentance is one side of a coin and that something else is on the other side of the coin. But, in this case repentance loses its primacy doesn't it? Because there are two sides to a coin aren't there? Some may consider faith and works and grace or other things and present them as being found on the other side of the coin too. But, hear again, how many sides does a coin have so this way of thinking soon finds a diminished value in conversations such as these. And, it is not as if repentance is a once for all thing is it?

A coin is normally viewed by facing one side or the other; by looking at either side, but not at both at the same time. And, in pairing up two different concepts as the two sides of a coin, the side one favors inevitably ends up face up.

When one holds one view strongly, with little or no consideration for the other side, it is similar to a coin lying flat on a surface----one side up, the other completely hidden.

The side you dance on (to keep the other side down) is kept well polished and clean, since it is what you put out for the entire world to see.

The other side is flat on its face. It cannot even be seen.

Now, such a position, of being at the bottom, can easily be misread as weakness, or of lesser importance, or as being defeated by the one on top. In fact, outta sight, outta mind----the top face forgets completely the hidden side that it rests on.

But is that not then indeed its foundation? And is the "in-between" rim and substance of the coin not that which holds the top side up, where it is displayed as the whole?

The rim?

The rim, well, now, there's a place that nobody cares about; that third surface that links the two sides, everywhere, all round.

The least of the coin's surfaces, it sacrificed the glamor of a side for a mobility that the sides can only dream of. It can go on a roll, or take a spin---but whatever it does, and wherever it goes, it takes the two sides along.

Without it, neither side can go anywhere.

Perhaps then, Rick, we should assign repentance to that least considered third side of the coin.

The rim holds the two opposite sides (such as action, and contemplation) together, so that, even if they seem irreconcilable, together they form one unit---a three in one unity.

And, as you point out, repentance being an ongoing thing, it seems to fit the rim best. It will keep us on a roll, regardless if our call favors "heads'" or "tails."

Now, as for a circular object such as a coin electing to roll along in a linear fashion…… (*insert dumbfounded emoticon with sheepish grin*)

Respectfully,

Learner

[Bratislav]

As regards Rick Henry's analogy of repentance being one side of a coin I would tend towards Leastone/Learner's direction of thought. If the "coin" of which we are speaking is salvation or "the christian life" or virtues or any such thing I woud tend to see repentence not as a side at all- not even the forgotten third side- but as the very material of which our coin is made.

In the same vein repentance is not a rung of the ladder that once stepped upon is left behind us but can be seen as the very material the ladder is composed of. It is said that the prayer of the publican, the "have mercy upon me a sinner", will follow us untill we reach the very gates of the Kingdom. Repentance must fill all we do or else our actions come to no worthwhile end.

My I also suggest that between the ideas of cycles (meaning circles) and a straight line we have the idea of a spiral to consider.

Unworthily,
Bratislav

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

I have a suspicion that we can get lost in analogies here. Repentance is what we are called to daily; any one of us who says he or she is without sin falls into folly; it is our cross and we bear it daily.

At the same time we are not called to be paralysed by it. If we stand before Him in His Church and we repent, then we have the assurance of forgiveness. That does not mean we can relax. We need to keep praying, and we need to show, through our actions in the world, whose disciples we are: works in faith, as well as works and faith; all this within the Church as well as in the world.

We know the ten commandments, we know His summary of what the law and all the prophets hang upon: we must love Him and each other. We must keep our hearts and minds focused upon these things, in faith and in love, remembering always that we stand in need of repentance and that, like the Prodigal, we shall be forgiven.

Gosh, it sounds so simple that a child could be saved; now, what was it He said about faith and children?

And lest we, like the Apostles, wonder how we, being repeat sinners, can be saved, let us recall His words in Matthew 19:26:

26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

As we are told in John 3:17:

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

He is the door through which we enter the Kingdom; He is the heart of our salvation.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for your posts, and I am looking forward to interacting with each of your very good posts when I have time later. But, as I am monitoring this thread throughout the work day, I can see that I am being associated with the dreaded coin analogy here :) Actually, I am arguing against the coin as a model :) when I said:




" . . . this way of thinking soon finds a diminished value in conversations such as these."



But, Learner has taken this coin thing in a new direction that may yet allow us to use the coin as a model just as he has presented it. So, if anything let's pin the coin thing on him :) (I still laugh heartily and with fervor when I think of you waving at me from the non-smokers section of the coffee shop by the way Learner :) So, possibly my type "A" personality is showing here, but I've been around monachos long enough now to know that there is a time to nip such things as this in the bud at times.

Peace,
Rick (the pruned)

PS Very good to have you aboard Bratislav, and just for record, I am not a huge fan of rungs either as you have well presented this.

PPSS Yes, John . . . I just noticed your post as I was proofing this short one--"lost in analogies" :)

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Lost in analogies, perhaps, but found in Him!

I am struck by two passages from St. Isaac the Syrian


For God, who is good and compassionate, is not in the habit of judging the infirmities of human nature or actions brought about by necessity, even though they may be reprehensible ... God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. Like a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God.
.......
Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love, and compassion: this constitutes the the beginning and the end of His dealings with us.

That is of great comfort when, in the words of the old Anglican general confession, the burden of my sins is intolerable.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear John,




He is the door through which we enter the Kingdom; He is the heart of our salvation. --John Charmley



You continue to bring such a grounding presence and a place to fix the gaze when it is most needed. Yes, "found in Him." And, yes, "the Door." It occurs to this slow learner now that Orthodoxy has a most excellent new pen. Also, thank you for the quotes by St. Isaac, the preacher of Agape. These words bring much comfort to me as well when I stop to consider the righteousness of God and the love of God. Yes, a daily repentance and a daily crucifixion, a daily dying to self--'moment by moment.' This is, I think, part of what Father Raphael was getting at in his post last month, that I hope to work my way back to before this day is over, God willing. Nobody commented on what he said about "laying it 'all' aside." This phrase has always had special meaning to me in what is being said both theologically and grammatically as Paul used it when he wrote to the Ephesians. There is so much being said here. And, I have spent many many hours on this phrase (and others like it) in the past ten years, but, for the first time I think I considered what exactly the word 'all' encompasses practically speaking. It is all encompassing and not beyond. In Father's writing he is transcending negations and affirmations, and as he points to the Door in this fashion, all metaphors/analogies and 'vehicles' (and 'drivers') seem to just become unimportant. Not that vehicles do not have a real place in the Life of Christ. But, this for another time. Thank you, John, for pointing us as you have, just as Father has, to the One who knocks and desires that we would open that He may come in and dine with us and we with Him.

In Christ,
Rick

Yes, He is *both* the Door *and* He is the One who knocks, and in Him we live and find our Being. May we apprehend that for which we have been apprehended.

[Rick H.]

As regards Rick Henry's analogy of repentance being one side of a coin I would tend towards Leastone/Learner's direction of thought. If the "coin" of which we are speaking is salvation or "the christian life" or virtues or any such thing I woud tend to see repentence not as a side at all- not even the forgotten third side- but as the very material of which our coin is made.

In the same vein repentance is not a rung of the ladder that once stepped upon is left behind us but can be seen as the very material the ladder is composed of. It is said that the prayer of the publican, the "have mercy upon me a sinner", will follow us untill we reach the very gates of the Kingdom. Repentance must fill all we do or else our actions come to no worthwhile end.

My I also suggest that between the ideas of cycles (meaning circles) and a straight line we have the idea of a spiral to consider.

Unworthily,
Bratislav


Dear Bratislav,

Thank you for your contribution. It is very much appreciated. I agree with you and I also will move towards 'Learner's' direction of thought. Yes, I think we have presented the coin as "The Christian Life" or as a model for considering a philosophy of Christian living. A coin with two sides does not work at all. But, a coin with three surfaces and substance or possibly layers in between works very well. As you have well said, I would also include repentance as being part of the very material itself.

And, I especially appreciate your assertion that just as repentance is not one side of a coin, it is also not a rung on a ladder that is stepped on and left behind! I may be in the minority here, but I am not a big fan of either ladders or mountain climbing in this sense. And, yes you may definitely suggest a spiral! just as another friend of mine has suggested a double helix in the past as well.

Sometimes I do, in fact, become fettered by the fetters of my fetters (as well as those of others), and then we have to call for the good doctor when that happens. But, your word pictures here are most helpful, and carry with them a high degree of the freedom that we have been set free for. I wonder if you have ever seen the Mel Gibson movie "Braveheart"? In this movie, his character, William Wallace, invests his whole life fighting for freedom, and at the end of the movie when he is being executed very slowly by his enemies, with his dying breath he shouts the word . . ."Freeeeeeedddoooooooooooommmmmm!"

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Rick


"It was for freedom that Christ set us free"--The Apostle Paul

[Rick H.]

Dear Learner,

I still don't see why I have to be pruned, but as you wish :) If I am tracking with you here, then I think that we have much in common in our view of a Philosophy of Christian Living. Possibly, this is a case where the Evangelical and the Orthodox cannot not stand together as One regardless of any imagined separations. One day, possibly, those in power will see that they are operating by means of "Reason leading truth" (cultis privatis) as opposed to "Truth leading reason." I appreciate the continuum of action and meditation that you have referred to here. This allows us to move beyond a legalistic "one size fits all" mentality in a most appropriate and graceful way. A Body has different limbs, we are not all arms or legs or eyes or ears are we? There is a Common Salvation but this Ground includes a diversity of function and expression and experience. This is one thing that I appreciate most about American Orthodoxy, just as with an Historic Eastern Orthodoxy, we are not all expected to cut our hair the same way, use the same cliches, listen to the same music, march in step and on beat, and so on. I have discovered an Orthodox Fundamentalism that I was not formerly aware of . . . but, enough here, I realize now that I am moving into a discussion that is better suited for the previous A.O. thread which "WE" will return to God willing. The questions that are being asked in the A.O. thread are not going to go away. And, they do not allow a lot of room for pretense either. Who is my sister in Christ? Who is your brother in Christ? Is Jetavan your brother in Christ? How about 'Learner' and Andreas? Is Maria your sister? How about John and Peter? How about me? What determines who is your brother and sister in Christ? Or, better yet, who/Who determines it/IT? And, we will be looking for answers other than well this Saint says or my wife's third cousins best friend says the Church says we do not presume to judge the salvation of anyone. Because, this is not the question. ***BUT AGAIN PLEASE NOTE: this is a trailer for the thread titled "AN AMERICAN ORTHODOXY?" and this is not the topic of this thread which is discussing "A Personal Spiritual Practice" at the present (believe it or not :)



So, 'Learner,' back to this "monachos" thread in general, and your post in particular we go now before my blood sugar bottoms out. And, actually, I think I will just finish up here by saying yes to the cyclic and the linear together, in a similar fashion, as you have concluded your last post. This is actually how I view it in my mind as well as on the 4' X 8' dry erase marker board that hangs in the hall of my house. I use this to outline thoughts at times, and to draw pictures which are usually lines and geometric shapes and other annoying things like that that usually are just erased the next morning when the sun comes up, and I see how absurd they are. But, if we were standing there now, I would share a drawing with you that I think is helpful. I would draw a long line, from left to right, which does 'ascend' upward. A line from the bottom left-hand corner of the board, to the top right-hand corner of the board. You pick the marker color :) I think we would all agree here, that 'ideally,' there is a growing and a maturing in the Life of Christ. And, I would like to represent this by a straight line which is drawn at an upward angle like the 'slope of a mountain' or even a 'ladder' leaning against a house. So there is the straight line you mentioned. However, instead of one circle (or disk), there are many circles or disks on this line (depending on one's age and/or degree of experience and spiritual growth or retardation). These circles which are placed side-by-side would show varying degrees of function or dysfunction found within the life of the individual. Through different transitions in one's life, these circles could represent varying degrees of immaturity and maturity--varying levels of ignorance and learning--varying levels of separation and communion. But, hopefully we would see at the end of our lives a whole series of these circles/disks that would fill up the line and that in spite of our failings at times, we also experienced success via Grace. And, in this sense, we would hopefully, *not* look at our lifeline at the end of our days and see just one or two circles down at the bottom lower left-hand corner whereby we see that we are trapped, and have spent our whole life trapped, in a never ending cycle of dysfunction where there is only ignorance and separation and a true bondage of the spirit. So enough here as well . . . these days go past in the blink of an eye anymore.

But, now with the need to refuel being felt . . . I will just say thanks 'again' for your usual most excellent and thought provoking contribution. As, we continue to work backwards here in our retrieval effort (literally in the present case still moving towards Father Raphaels work) we will revisit your previous post where you provided a most heavenly place of unity and acceptance via the golden rule as well. On second, thought, with your permission, I may just bump that post over to the American Orthodoxy thread in the near future.

Thank you Learner.

God bless you,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear Seraphim98 and All:

In a further attempt to work back to what was said in Father Raphael's post, I would like to acknowledge and represent Seraphim's outstanding post. Sometimes, I'm afraid that when this thread goes through a flurry of activity on some days, like we had recently, that some of the golden nuggets that are laid out on top of the ground are not picked up and retained. But, they are stepped on at times, and pushed into the ground by the stampede that moves through.

Seraphim has gone to the same place that I will go when I finally get caught up with Father. Consider what he is saying here afresh as it relates to such things as foundations (as well as how we build on those foundations). And, please also consider the difference between a foundationalism and a web-of-belief. I think this is where we may find a good place, one that we can point to that will provide some fences, if you will, that will establish in a clear way what is in bounds and what is out of bounds as we choose precious stones to build with, or as we choose wood, hay, and stubble to form our walls and ceiling.

In Christ,
Rick



To comment briefly on Rick's post that seemed to stir things up a bit, if I am not mistaken, and if I have not misremembered what I read concerning the life of St. Silouan as told by Elder Sophrony that the spiritual practices of other religions seem more like that of Orthodoxy the closer the exercise of those practices are rooted in our common experience as fallen humans. Thus the asceticism of a hindu guru might have a lot in common pragmatically with that of an Orthodox monk...the quiet meditation of a Zen practitioner likewise. Given the common illness of man it is not to be wondered at if man has discovered some common ways across many cultures to ameliorate the coarser expressions of the present human condition. A house is a house be it built on sand or stone...but it is the storm that prove the house's foundations, and if the foundations fail, so does the house. So I think it fair to say, in some of these other systems some pragmatic good can be demonstrated in their various disciplines that seek to subdue and prune the superfulities of human passions. And that they look much the same because they deal with so much of the same basic territory.

But beyond this basic territory...this common tilling of field as it were there the substantive differences begin to tell...for once the soil is prepared it will receive whatever seed is planted in it. And it is here the practice and mindset of Orthodox ascetics more and more diverge from that of other faiths. And most if not all of these other systems find their way to see some of man as he is even in fallen splendor...this still radient if marred image of God and mistake it for the true light of God shining in the illumined heart. The well guided Orthodox ascetic is not permitted to be decieved by this, not to mistake it for anything other than what it is, and thus repentance is redoubled for now the Orthodox ascetic begins to understand how terrible and profound the fall was...for if this is the broken image...what then is that image restored...and what is the prototype from who it was taken? And in holy dread they root themselves more firmly in prayer seeing both the great danger and the great tempation of their own being...at least I gather that it is something like this...and if they pass though this then God in His time choses to visit them and kindle the lamp of the Spirit more manifestly in their hearts.

And if I am wrong...those who know better do correct me.

[Maria Mahoney]

Instead of a spiral... how about a Mobius strip? ;)

In Christ,
Maria

[Rick H.]

(Ecclesiology-Missiology-Soteriology [and crisis theology] courtesy of 'Learner')


Dear Maria, Peter, and 'Learner:'


Dear Maria,


Instead of a spiral... how about a Mobius strip? ;)

In Christ,
Maria

Yes, after finding out a little bit about what a Mobius strip is, I must say this does look like a very good model. I have never heard of this before, but I think it has much value in our discussion. Thank you.


Dear Peter,



This morning in my devotions I read a passage from Amma Theodora about fasting, vigils and silence. She describes the demons saying that they weren't cast out by fasters, because they don't eat at all. They were not cast out by those who keep vigils, because they do not sleep at all. Nor were they cast out by those in solitiude because they inhabit the desert places. But they are cast out by humility. For myself I need to be a bit more humble about other people and their spiritual pilgrimages. I know that God granted me light enough for the journey when I was outside Orthodoxy, and I have confidence that He grants all men light enough for the journey.


Yes, here as well. As you have shared above, "But they are cast out by humility." I appreciate the wisdom and the humility in your words very much. Regardless of where one is on one's path, it is God who grants the light to the degree that He wills, and I have confidence as you do the "He grants all men light enough . . ." Just beautiful! What a perspective for missions. What a perspective for evangelism. It has been said that you can take the evangelical out of evangelicalism; but, you cannot take the evangelicalism out of the evangelical (actually this may have not been said before ;), but, in my case, I sure hope that this is a true saying as it relates to OUTREACH. May Evangelicalism learn what it is lacking from Orthodoxy in the present day, and may Orthodoxy learn from Evangelicalism what it is lacking in the present day. An Orthodox Missiology? If we can move the conversation forward on the A.O. thread, then we can consider such things as who do we evangelize and who do we not evangelize, then we may consider evangelization. If we do not even know who "WE" are then how can we know where to direct our missions work--All, please think about this. Or, again here, possibly to avoid this conversation is to be able to continue in a state of apathy and this is just another example of a very sophisticated system of non-surrender which allows a state of non-accountability while piteously observing a list of things and saying this is all there is. But, this for another time and another thread. Thanks very much Peter for your most excellent perspective. Obviously, I do not even know this Indian man that you have mentioned here and on another thread, but, between your spirit that you have shared here about this shopkeeper, and his spirit towards you that you have shared as well, I think there is picture painted that is easy to be entreated.


Dear Learner,

And, now, as I respond to your post of 2/3, we have worked our way back to Father Raphael's post's that proceeded the very active period on this thread. And, I have saved your post for last because I think it needs to be handled very carefully at the present time (not unlike nitro glycerin). When you say:



Fine. I understand that these practices, even though somewhat similar in completely different traditions, are simply man's attempt God-ward, and does not secure the ultimate liberation or salvation from our common fallenness.


I think this is very provocative in some aspects, but hopefully, we can work around the soteriological aspects of what you are saying at the present time. And, maybe it is not possible to move forward with integrity and academic honesty in this discussion of a personal spiritual practice without considering what you are saying. But, I am afraid if we go there, then this will completely destroy everything that has been worked for up to this point. Please know 'Learner,' that I hear you[!] on this (and I hope you will trust me about this). But, I am led to believe that Father Raphael possibly "has the goods here" like no one else that has been willing to consider this with me before. And, we are right on the verge of bringing this to light here I think. And, when you move on to say:



It is God's deliverance of grace man-ward, that ultimately binds him to God; makes him a partaker of the divine nature. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

This salvation in Christ came, however, not in excellent performances of practices spiritual, but through repentance and belief (practices spiritual, but less mystical).

I just do not comprehend how practices, formerly worthless to secure the ultimate light of salvation, suddenly become the very practices needed to secure the ultimate (vision of God.) Of course, they only can, if Christ is in them, and the practitioner is in Christ.

But, is it really the repentant, fallen man, who brings Christ (form outside) into spiritual practices (after having done all the right things outside of these practices), or was He there all along, present in them all the time, but simply waiting for a confession of faith from the one seeking Him through such practices?



In many ways, as I use the expression relating to my feelings that Father Raphael possibly "has the goods," I can see with no effort at all that as we consider what is salvific and what is not salvific, that you "are all over this!" But, again I would like to beg for your indulgence here because to even develop this area in the slightest at the present time would be to completely blow this present discussion apart. So again knowing that nobody died and made me moderator, I would like to ask for your patience here and suggest that in the American Orthodoxy thread we can hopefully 1.) Consider who is the "WE" [thanks for your usual outstanding work there yesterday by the way]; 2.) Consider an Orthodox Missiology? 3.) And, then once we get a clue as to who "WE" are, and once "WE" hopefully decide that Missions is something "WE" are the slightest bit interested in, then I would like to suggest that this would then be the appropriate time for "US" to consider the soteriology of an historic Orthodox Christian. I know this may seem backwards to some, but based on what I know about this community, I think it is possible that any other approach (barring divine intervention) would result in chaos and polarization and in the end, a silence from which no good thing can come.

Shalom-Shalom,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Rick H.]

Part II: Father Raphael's "Tightrope"


Dear Father Raphael,

I sure hope that we can make this work here in this environment. I really wish we could all just meet somewhere and you could stand up at the front of the room, and we would all sit down, and just listen.

In your post to this thread on February 22, 2007, you spoke of a "purposeful tension" and the imperativeness of walking a "tightrope" in order to "avoid a very deep betrayal." In this sense as another has well said, "True discipleship is a delicate balance between extremes." As this same person has also said:





I am hard pressed to find a more poignant metaphor for a disciple’s life than that of a tightrope walk. Treading with care, a tightrope walker travels along a thin, stretched out cable to reach the other side; on route, gravity tugs at the walker’s coattails, aided perhaps by a gusty wind which threatens a fall to one side or the other. In order to overcome these obstacles, the aerial daredevil must be singularly focused on maintaining balance every step of the way.



. . . how perfect! And, it is almost as if this same person is monitoring this thread, and contributing directly to it anonymously, as he goes on to say:




As believers, it is natural to go from one extreme to the other as you and I walk the tightrope. Some Christians find comfort and safety in legalism, much like the Pharisees, while others naturally gravitate towards permissiveness, focusing exclusively on God’s love, while ignoring the need for purity and holiness.



So, yes all things considered here in our discussion to this point of " A Personal Spiritual Practice," a tightrope it is.

And, now in an effort to finish up my 'examination' of your work, which you have graciously approved, I would like to begin to consider your words as I quote you directly from the above mentioned post:




However we look at this issue of good outside of the Church- and it is so important precisely now when so much for both very good and very bad reasons is outside the Church- our answer must not deny either the limitedness still present in our world nor must it deny the fact that all things will one day meet the point of their fulfillment. Here we must keep walking this tight rope on both counts or else there results a very deep betrayal of our witness to the created nature.

In any case, right now there cannot be complete clarity about good outside of the Church essentially because good cannot really be separated from the fulfillment of all things in Christ.



And, it occurs to me now, that this present effort of mine is not doing justice to your prior writing as it relates to free will and limitedness together (or some extremes that are necessary), and we have not included the concept of "laying it 'all' aside in this conclusion of sorts :( So, this may be becoming very unclear very quickly at this point. Ugh! . . . yes, I think it is possible that we have become incomprehensible now . . .

Possibly, we are forced to go back to the beginning here. Yes, I am afraid so. With my apologies, I am going to make this post now, which I think at the very least demonstrates that this is *not* a 'cut-and-dried' conversation. I think some here may have the feeling like, "Man[!] what's the matter with you?" "This is an easy thing and a short conversation!" "Why don't you just move on, Aye?" But, there *is* a tension here that must be maintained in order to avoid a betrayal. Come to think of it, I have seen some high wire acts recently at Circ De Sole, in Las Vegas. And, while I am sitting there in the comfort of my seat enjoying my food and drink and listening to the beautiful music and seeing all the colorful sights, it is very easy to forget how hard it is for those up in the air (and how dangerous it is). But, there is nothing easy about it for the ones actually doing it! There is nothing that is easy about walking on a tight rope and trying to find a place of balance, especially when the winds kick up. It is very ignorant to think otherwise.

So, with my apologies, I will submit this now, and become 'hyperfocused' on the task at hand even if this means becoming intentionally obtuse to all else as we move forward one-step-at-a-time.

In Christ,

'Truth leading reason'

Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Rick H.]

***Note to Reader: After composing this post, I see that it is a very lengthy, and almost everything that is presented here has already been presented in separate posts in the past; however, I am afraid this combining of thoughts is absolutely necessary in order to get us going again in a coherent way. As much as anything, this post is a source document, or a place of reference, in our evolving discussion.


Dear Father Raphael,

For the purpose of a "one-stop-shopping" type of review and reference point, I am quoting you below [again] from your post[s] on 2/22 in the following:





But ultimately in Christian terms we know this path [a path outside of Christ] is not correct because it must lead somewhere eventually- and that can only be either Christ or the false light of darkness.



But it [a path outside of Christ] is also wrong since it will always be incomplete & unfulfilled as long as Christ is not consciously part of this path.



And how many examples of such enlightenment [good outside the Church] have we seen in our times which gradually revealed themselves as total delusion?



But only in Christ will he [the 'good' Zen Buddhist'] begin to crack the one shell that really waits breaking from all of us.



We must beware that when we speak of universal humanity in relation to the Church of only stopping at one point in their lives. Thus the Zen Buddhist doing his thing hopefully in the best way he knows but yet who does not know Christ. Truly if we stop at this point and force a clear answer then either all truths are equal or else the poor Zen Buddhist is damned.



Thus at some point this Zen Buddhist, like all of us, will inevitably have this revealed to him. Or to say it another way at some point for all things all that will be left is Christ and His Body. And at that point each will clearly make his/her choice, but a choice which has consistency with the choices made previously in their lives.








Perhaps it's wrong to say that at some point along the way those who pursue this natural light [the Zen Buddhist or whoever] are always on the wrong track.



. . . the 'good man' or St Paul's natural man [those pursuing a path outside of Christ] could be on a good path in terms of the direction it may be going.



We see good [outside the church] around us and wish to acknowledge it- it's not of no worth.



Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even.




And, in order to not exclude any readers who may wish to follow along as we move forward, I will include a block quote from you also which speaks of cracking shells, methods/practices, and death to self/laying it 'all' aside:




The thing of it Rick is that for all of our charity we still do know in Christ that the point of all of this is to break the egg shell of sin & death and find life & freedom. Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even. But only in Christ will he begin to crack the one shell that really waits breaking from all of us.

But the way this happens between the natural man and the person being remade in Christ is actually so different. Whether we see it or not the natural man only has a finite point to head for- and that's probably why all natural spiritualities are drawn towards using a method to achieve their end.

But within the Church there is no 'method' short of continually dying to ourselves over & over again so that every thought & impulse are purified in the fire of Christ's grace and are handed back to us remade. Techniques also must follow this path, whether these be techniques for inner prayer, for how to enter the church properly or for how to sing the service. More often than not these become idols for us, methods rather than means of salvation. So just like the practicer of the Jesus prayer who is continually tried by Christ so that he ends up in a very different place than where he began we too with every method we engage in will find ourselves humbled over & over again by the circumstances which Christ allows so that we gradually allow Him into our lives and not just the things of human creation.

As it says in the Cherubic Hymn: "Lay aside All Earthly cares." I wonder if we pay enough attention to those words we sing so frequently. All cares; all earthly endeavors, all plans, all methods, and it doesn't even matter that they are good. Lay it all aside to find Christ.



And, finally, knowing the subject of freewill/choice and limitedness will come up in future conversation, we see the following in your writing:




In any case, right now there cannot be complete clarity about good outside of the Church essentially because good cannot really be separated from the fulfillment of all things in Christ.




After, I posted these above thoughts once before in an attempt to understand what you are saying clearly and at the same time to work further towards a Christian Anthropology, there was some objection to what you have said. And, you offered a clarification in a post on 2/3, whereby you explained that "there are two realities to tie together." In the following you said:




There are two realities to tie together. Otherwise we fall into one of two mistakes each just as serious as the other.

One of these realities is that there is the Body of Christ wherein is found Truth Incarnate.

The other is that all that is good & beautiful must also be a reflection of Christ's Truth.

The Holy Frs struggled with these two constantly and often stressed one over the other according to circumstance.

In terms of this discussion however it is important to keep in mind that the only reason these two occur is due to the reality of the Fall. Without this all would be within the Body of Christ or at least consciously moving towards this in terms of deification (I'm thinking of St Irenaeus' presentation of Adam & Eve in Paradise; ie before the Fall, being spiritually immature and being called to grow in Christ).

This state of being outside the Church however is paradoxical or ambiguous because it is not simply a state of perdition as of yet. In other words being outside the Church at this point does not literally or necessarily equal hell.

Why not? Because we always have to keep truth within the scope of the inner dynamic which all nature and especially humanity have as part of their nature in the first place.

In other words now is not the culmination of Time in Christ when all that will be left is the Light of Christ's Truth and all of creation with humanity standing before Him.

Separation can definitely be one of the images of hell. This separation is also however, and often in an inseparable way, an image equally as powerful of man's intense longing for God & of his need to continually cast himself in faith upon God's mercy no matter what hell he may find himself in. Read St John Climacos for powerful statements of this paradox of heaven & hell.

Separation then is a room with two doors in it and not only one. And ultimately we all are in it.

Which door we pick however is yet to be seen.




So, you have basically addressed the objection by explaining further and saying in so many words, 'what I have said stands' . . . 'there is a tension here, as it relates to our discussion of A Personal Spiritual Practice . . . there are two realities to tie together . . . there is a dialectic at work here and we must be able to juxtapose these two realities.

And, now with this place of reference established, so that we can refer back to it if necessary--as we move forward--I will end this now, and begin interacting with the material in the next post with your continued permission. Thanks again.


In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

I hope that your summation did not tick off too many folk, and that those who wonder what we are about in this thread will either indulge us or wander off to something they find more fruitful.

We must never forget that at the heart of our salvation there is a mystery. We are offered the way, the truth and the light, but we have the free-will to refuse it, to reject it, and to revile it; we can turn away, choose the father of lies, and go to dwell in deepest darkness - and still be loved by Him, and still be saved if we will but repent and follow Him.

In the Orthodox Church we find the fullness of the Faith; but we cannot presume to know whether it is only in it that a man or a woman can find salvation. Sometimes some Orthodox give the impression that they think this is so, and we can see why they would think that, and it is not wrong to think it; but neither is it the whole of the truth. God will decide, and we cannot presume to know what He will do.

I fear some may find it shocking that I should think that there can be salvation outside the Orthodox Church, there is good patristic support for such a position.

Perhaps this, from The First Letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians (chapter 7) will help us a little here?

Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites; but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies writes in Book 3, chapter 11 that:

The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all
such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is
one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and
invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God
made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the
creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

None of this is to deny that Salvation is only through Him, but it is to assert that there is a mystery at its heart, and that only God knows to whom salvation is granted; although he grants to all who hear His word the means, this is not barred to those who do not hear it.

Or is that too convoluted - or plain wrong?

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

FRV II .ii "A Purposeful Tension"


***Dear John: I am in the process of composing this post, and I am just now getting to the part about a division between 'salvation & sanctification' as some see it as opposed to the view that there is no division. And, I just noticed your last post (which should be the one above this one if I hurry), but all this is to say that possibly we cannot have this discussion without including the soteriological aspect? I think I am hoping for a foundationalism here (on Christ) that allows room (fences or fluid borders on the foundation) for some practices that do 'crack real shells' that benefit real people, even if they are merely psychological or physiological helps associated with a 'natural light.' But, I promise I have no agenda other than to learn, so maybe I should relax my grip here? Do you see what I mean? I guess we will see as we move along, one step at a time. There are actually two conversations going on here, but, maybe it is not possible to have the one without the other.


Dear Father Raphael,

Well, here we are . . . as it has been said by another, "Wherever you go, There you are." :) And, I have spent so much time with your writing, that I do not feel the need to take what I have bullet pointed and quoted to this point and go over it with you any longer. I think it is very clear. From my point of view, what you are saying is both very clear and very beautiful. So I would like to just start interacting with it, and you, now. And, please know that I have no agenda here, and even though at times I may ask some questions that I already know the answers to, for the remainder of our time discussing your writing, this is *not* the M.O. and the intent is to learn. Possibly, to learn what may be considered in-bounds and what may be considered out-of-bounds as we consider how and what we use for building materials, as we build on the foundation of Jesus Christ of which there is no other. And, also, as we consider a path in Christ as opposed to a path outside of Christ.

I am not exactly sure how there has come to be such a focus on the Buddhist in this thread, by so many of us, but I guess this actually works very well. I do appreciate very much most of the Buddhadharma writers and adherents that I have come into contact with. And, Thomas Merton was misunderstood by many when he said that "To the extent that Buddhism intersects with Christianity, he hopes to be the best Buddhist that he can be," but, possibly this is a very good means/group to bring into our discussion of an historic Orthodox Christian approach to a personal spiritual practice.

It has been said that "Buddhism is the most psychological of spiritualities and it is the most spiritual of psychologies." And, as we consider a personal spiritual practice this does include the mystical/spiritual as well as the psychological (and the physical). Therefore, in the following quote by you, possibly we can get a fingerhold now by at least briefly considering the Buddhist and the Christian together:




There are two realities to tie together. Otherwise we fall into one of two mistakes each just as serious as the other.

One of these realities is that there is the Body of Christ wherein is found Truth Incarnate.

The other is that all that is good & beautiful must also be a reflection of Christ's Truth.



And, when I initially read as you have previously written:




Perhaps it's wrong to say that at some point along the way those who pursue this natural light [the Zen Buddhist or whoever] are always on the wrong track . . . the 'good man' or St Paul's natural man [those pursuing a path outside of Christ] could be on a good path in terms of the direction it may be going . . . We see good [outside the church] around us and wish to acknowledge it- it's not of no worth . . . Maybe the 'good' Zen Buddhist cracks other shells, real shells even.



my mind goes straight to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter he speaks of the [I]pneumatikos man or the spiritual or the mystical man. And, he speaks of the psuchikos or psychological or natural man. And, he also speaks of the sarkikos man or the 'fleshly' man who lives according to the flesh. And, from his work in the first three chapters of this letter, we can see that Paul is saying there are three main modes here if you will. More than three combinations can be formed, and are possibly helpful to consider for some. But, I think we see at a glance the three main (or first level subheadings) in the following: 1.) There is the ideal situation which is to live as a pneumatikos man; 2.) There is the less than ideal situation which is to live as the pneumatikos sarkikos man (as in the case of the immature Corinthians); 3.) And, there is the least desirable mode of living as the psuchikos man {unless one wants to consider the psuchikos sarkikos man as being the least desireable mode--which it probably is}.

And, now it occurs to me that possibly I should check up here, to see make sure I am not running out of the stadium on my first run here. Do you see the pneumatikos man here as being the one on the path in Christ? The Protestant or the Evangelical who would separate 'salvation' from 'sanctification,' as they use the term, would see the pneumatikos man as the regenerate man (as they would see the psuchikos man as the unregenerate man). But, we Orthodox do not see it this way do we?

So, I will just check/punt here to see if I am even remotely close or if we can speak the same language as it relates to the above (including my note to John). If this does not make any sense, then please just let me know and I will try it again in another way. Hopefully, you can see where I am going with this and you can see that there are only sincere and honorable aspirations involved in these efforts.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The context that the Fathers dealt with was very different from the question we have in mind.

The Fathers such as St Irenaeus were dealing with heresy for the most part in conscious opposition to the Church. In other words these heresies at some point come to be defined in relation to the Church. In this sense the Fathers are categorical that salvation is not to be found outside of the Church since we are speaking again of those who consciously oppose the Church.

If we want an analogy perhaps it is a bit like a house with warmth and light etc in it. Outside is darkness. The Holy Frs were likely to say that the Church is like this house- inside is light. But outside of it is darkness. Simply put in their context it was just so obvious where the Light of Christ was to be found and where it wasn't.

I think though that we are asking a very different question about what awaits those who hardly at all live in conscious relation to the Church- many or most are simply unaware of Orthodoxy. I think that in this situation we must also place those who realistically will scarcely choose Orthodoxy, whose familiarity with Orthodoxy doesn't go beyond having heard the name, if that.

I don't think most Patristic quotes can be properly applied to this situation because the Church until the 20th century did not face a situation like this.

I think we make a grave error if we do not recognize the present situation of so much of humanity outside the orbit of the Church as being essentially fallen. Though not the result of conscious choice in the way the Fathers encountered this it still is the result of human choice even if of a different type. For certainly we meet human choice at every step around us- indeed this culture quite literally prides itself on exalting human choice. But the kind of conscious choice we face nowadays is characterized by spiritual ignorance rather than conscious rejection of what is obviously the Church. This spiritual ignorance however does not mean that no sort of choice at all is involved. Nor does it mean that in some sense the Church is not very much being consciously turned away from.


The question we are trying to ask I think or at least should be trying to ask is: How will this ignorance affect a person's salvation? Here the Fathers do indicate that only to the extent that we turn away from spiritual ignorance & regard it as our enemy will we find Christ. The Fathers are quite clear that no position 'outside the Church' lessens our responsibility for such ignorance. Of course it is extremely difficult to make a sober & accurate assessment of someone else on this score. But still we must understand that ignorance does not equal innocence or create a sovereign space outside of the Truth which comes from our common Creator.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

my mind goes straight to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In this letter he speaks of the pneumatikos man or the spiritual or the mystical man. And, he speaks of the psuchikos or psychological or natural man. And, he also speaks of the sarkikos man or the 'fleshly' man who lives according to the flesh. And, from his work in the first three chapters of this letter, we can see that Paul is saying there are three main modes here if you will. More than three combinations can be formed, and are possibly helpful to consider for some. But, I think we see at a glance the three main (or first level subheadings) in the following: 1.) There is the ideal situation which is to live as a pneumatikos man; 2.) There is the less than ideal situation which is to live as the pneumatikos sarkikos man (as in the case of the immature Corinthians); 3.) And, there is the least desirable mode of living as the psuchikos man {unless one wants to consider the psuchikos sarkikos man as being the least desireable mode--which it probably is}.

And, now it occurs to me that possibly I should check up here, to see make sure I am not running out of the stadium on my first run here. Do you see the pneumatikos man here as being the one on the path in Christ? The Protestant or the Evangelical who would separate 'salvation' from 'sanctification,' as they use the term, would see the pneumatikos man as the regenerate man (as they would see the psuchikos man as the unregenerate man). But, we Orthodox do not see it this way do we?

So, I will just check/punt here to see if I am even remotely close or if we can speak the same language as it relates to the above (including my note to John). If this does not make any sense, then please just let me know and I will try it again in another way. Hopefully, you can see where I am going with this and you can see that there are only sincere and honorable aspirations involved in these efforts.


Are we speaking of 1 Cor 15 onwards? If so then there is one verse which sums up what St Paul is saying: "I tell you this, brethren, flesh & blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the perishable."


Outside of the Church a person can be attracted by the imperishable. But yet because he does not come to know the Source of this imperishability some degree of confusion and incompleteness will remain.

Will such a person be saved? Something we haven't brought up so far and which is so connected to repentance and compunction is self-honesty. We speak of the possibility of salvation outside of the Church almost totally in connection to church teachings or people's disposition in some general sense. We overlook that within the Church, doctrine and praxis weave inseparably with the inner spiritual life of the faithful which has a very distinct quality of growing self-honesty based on repentance & dying to oneself. Only within the Church can there be 100% consistency with what we really are in truth.

The point then is that salvation refers to something with definite characteristics. The fact that we cannot completely restrict these in regards to what people in any case will often aspire to still does not deny that striving for the imperishable requires at some point Christ and the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

A Case Scenario

Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you for the reference to 1 Cor 15 onwards and the following verse:



Are we speaking of 1 Cor 15 onwards? If so then there is one verse which sums up what St Paul is saying: "I tell you this, brethren, flesh & blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the perishable."


Actually, I was speaking primarily of the first three chapters of Paul's letter to the immature Corinthians as he addressed the subject of division. Specifically, in I Cor 2:6-16 and I Cor 3:1-4, Paul addresses the subject of division within the body of Christ by explaining and pointing to a childish and immature and fleshy Christian approach as compared to those who he speaks wisdom among, the mature. In this section of his letter in particular, he uses the terms that I mentioned last time, pneumatikos [man], psuchikos [man], and sarkikos [man]. I brought these words of Paul's into our discussion because I thought they were helpful as we consider the man/men on a path in Christ as opposed to the man/men on a path outside of Christ, as we have been discussing. Also, in chapter three is a discussion about our "foundation" and how we build on it.

And, after reading your last post, as well as John's very provocative last contribution (which I may address in the A.O. thread when time permits), I am thinking it is possible that a very straightforward run may possibly be in order here as we consider a personal spiritual practice. This is because I think when we consider such things as who is the church and where is salvation found they are very intricately related to the present topic and cannot be separated. But, the differing views on these things necessarily color our discussion of a personal spiritual practice. And, this is not a bad thing. This is a good thing. Because, it shows a genuineness and a sincere and consistent belief motivated by a desire to be led by Truth--as opposed to a desire to hide in a legalistic system of reason for less than honorable motives. So, with your permission (hopefully), I will try a different approach here. Instead of working from the big picture to the small picture, or from the perimeter of an area that is seen from an airplane, I would like to move to the center of the area with the feet on the ground and work from here.

I think I can say that I agree 100% with what you have said in your last four most excellent posts. I especially appreciate your openness and compassion for people. You express a love, an agape that does not carry with it a hammer or a baseball bat (or a hockey stick), ready to hit someone on the head at the first sign of a misstep. Your state of being, your ontology, characteristically provides a vehicle of grace for many of us here, and as I can see based on your comments that when people in Winnipeg may meet you on the streets, even if they are wearing the saffron robe, that this would be a very beautiful thing. What a great picture actually. The Russian priest monk with his beard and long hair, and black shirt and collar, standing on the street corner, or in the coffee shop, speaking the Language of Love to possibly the Tibetan monk with his clean shaven face and head, and colorful robe.

But, anyway, with us finding a place of agreement as we have in your last four posts, from here I wonder if we can set up a picture of a person who is operating on a foundation which is Christ. And, on this foundation there are borders or fences of sorts being erected as he seeks to establish his life. As he seeks to live in a place of balance as much as possible. As he knows that his life is not just a spiritual thing. As he knows that his life is also a physical thing, and a psychological thing. And, as he knows that all three of these things are intricately tied together, and that if one becomes out of balance then ultimately all will become out of balance. And, this will result in dysfunction. So as he seeks to live the life in Christ, and walk the path that is in Christ, he sets out to discover and establish a personal spiritual practice that is in fact in bounds and does work for him in particular with all things considered.

Possibly, this person has a moderate to severe problem with a highly functional autism, and he is also off the charts with ADD and he has a severe problem in this area. Possibly, he spends his whole life oscillating back and forth between these two extremes throughout the day and it is very exhausting for him as he tries to find a place of balance literally every waking moment. And, possibly this person has found much relief in personal spiritual practice which is built on the foundation of Christ. And, his personal spiritual practice which is both offered up to Christ and focuses on Christ includes such things as Zen Buddhist forms of meditation which are perfectly parallel in practice to Orthodox practices, as well as even such things as Yoga, which he knows are sometimes merely practice for practice sake, but which still none the less bring about a great source of healing and balance and relief from the constant oscillating between a gazing into the void and an anxiously looking about that overwhelm him and characterize his life.

So in this sense, and using your language of egg shells, we see that there is BOTH a striving to crack the "one shell" that we all need to crack In Christ as you have well said, AND there is a striving to crack some of the other shells as well, that are "real shells" as you have also well said. And, continuing with our hypothetical example above, we see that this man who works from a foundation which is Christ, and no other, can easily stay in bounds with his personal spiritual practice that is accepted by all (even the legalists); however, in his efforts to find a place of balance and to take care of himself in real ways (physically and psychologically) his efforts can be challenged and condemned--even if they are self admitted 'practice for practice sake' helps.

And, when we move even further into this area (some things included in a personal spiritual practice that may be considered practice for practice sake), we see that these things do help in very practical ways for some. Or, in other words, when we break our leg we do not start praying the Jesus prayer, or start praying and fasting in the hopes that this would not be a reality in our lives any longer. We go to the emergency room Right? This is not really so much a spiritual thing as it is a physical thing or a biological thing. Right? And, just as our poor friend above who suffers each day with his neurological disorders that are biological as it relates to a slowing of the brain waves and an inactive front lobe region of the brain finds out he needs help, is he to sit and pray and fast in the hope that his physical an biological condition will not be a reality any longer? Christ, when he walked the earth, healed in ways that could be observed by all both physically and psychologically. He healed the lame and the crippled (as well as raised the dead), and he also healed those afflicted and possessed mentally as well. So, what can happen is not the issue here.

And, I know we are really looking under the microscope here. But, this is okay too. Because, if we answer this question that I am posing now, I think we have answered all questions about a personal spiritual practice.

When I bring up such things as yoga or thinking about energetic centers or such things as the Chinese view of energy, chi, or the Indian view of the same, prana, or for that matter just about anything that has to do with an Eastern view of a holistic approach to living and health and balance, it is not usually too long before my fellow "Christians" start to gnash theer teeth and rip their clothes, and go for their guns or baseball bats.

And, they usually are resort to such things as guilt by association. What a dirty trick. I have seen it here on this website too. You know what I mean. Something like this, "yoga you say? . . . Hmmm . . . yes, Satanic worship, yoga, and child molesting . . . yes, I am very familiar with your yoga!" To which it may be responded, 'OH, OKAY . . . . UMM . . . THANKS." I referenced a book here the other day called, "Fast Facts on False Teachings." In this book, the authors (and I use the term lightly), explained that yoga was evil by placing it in the same thought unit with LSD and Charles Manson. But, it doesn't matter what the issue is, this is a non-scholarly ploy and the reason why there are so many stupid Christians. These types prey on the uneducated and . . . well for another day. Okay, excuse me for just a minute please, "Serenity Now!" (Another, Seinfeld moment John :)

Another view can be one of "everything you need, all the tools you need for living a happy, healthy, balanced, and functional life in Christ can be found in the Church, The Orthodox Church." To which a similar response may be made as to the last attempt to help the above seeker--Okay, thanks mister!

So, it's dark outside now and the birds are starting to chirp. That means the sun is going to come up soon. And, that means the rest of my family will be staggering out into the kitchen where I am now and I will lose my spot at the table, so I better go.

But, I hope we can consider this very practical level just as it is presented in this case scenario above. This way we can take our conversation out of the clouds and bring it down to earth and speak about it as it affects real people, or better yet, as it "applies" to and can be "applied" by real people "in practice" in there lives. Because if we cannot discuss this on this level in a meaningful way then what good is it? And, what good are we?


In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Well, it strikes me that Christianity, or, more specifically, following Christ, is not about finding areas of agreement with the world. It is not a debating society. It is what it is. That does not mean that there is no room for questioning. There is always room for honest, open questioning, such as the case with the Ethiopian eunuch. But it's a bit like the legal trend in the U.S. Supreme Court of quoting cases in Nigeria to formulate American legal precedent.

Orthodoxy, so far as I know, has never restricted the Holy Spirit to the Church, as an institutional entity. That's because the Church, and the liturgical life of the Church, represent all humanity. But that is not a concession to other paths.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Rick wrote:


When I bring up such things as yoga or thinking about energetic centers or such things as the Chinese view of energy, chi, or the Indian view of the same, prana, or for that matter just about anything that has to do with an Eastern view of a holistic approach to living and health and balance, it is not usually too long before my fellow "Christians" start to gnash theer teeth and rip their clothes, and go for their guns or baseball bats.

And, they usually are resort to such things as guilt by association. What a dirty trick. I have seen it here on this website too. You know what I mean. Something like this, "yoga you say? . . . Hmmm . . . yes, Satanic worship, yoga, and child molesting . . . yes, I am very familiar with your yoga!" To which it may be responded, 'OH, OKAY . . . . UMM . . . THANKS." I referenced a book here the other day called, "Fast Facts on False Teachings." In this book, the authors (and I use the term lightly), explained that yoga was evil by placing it in the same thought unit with LSD and Charles Manson. But, it doesn't matter what the issue is, this is a non-scholarly ploy and the reason why there are so many stupid Christians. These types prey on the uneducated and . . . well for another day. Okay, excuse me for just a minute please, "Serenity Now!" (Another, Seinfeld moment John :)

Another view can be one of "everything you need, all the tools you need for living a happy, healthy, balanced, and functional life in Christ can be found in the Church, The Orthodox Church." To which a similar response may be made as to the last attempt to help the above seeker--Okay, thanks mister!

...

But, I hope we can consider this very practical level just as it is presented in this case scenario above. This way we can take our conversation out of the clouds and bring it down to earth and speak about it as it affects real people, or better yet, as it "applies" to and can be "applied" by real people "in practice" in there lives. Because if we cannot discuss this on this level in a meaningful way then what good is it? And, what good are we?

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread in detail so it could be some are reacting against the use of anything not specifically Orthodox like yoga. My impression though was that mostly what was being said is that we have to be cautious or careful about such things.

For example I have known Orthodox Christians who do yoga but not as part of any spirituality that would contradict the Faith. My first spiritual father who is an Orthodox hieromonk also, at least when I was with him, did yoga from time to time. One thing he said was that he thought the chakras corresponded to real energy centres within us. But following the advice of the Holy Frs we must be very careful about not concentrating on the energy centre found below the heart when doing the Jesus Prayer.

Which is to say that the practices of other non-western cultures may contain real insights about the reality of the human being as a psycho-somatic creature. But central to Orthodoxy is how we relate to this temple of the Holy Spirit.

I agree though that this question is very important to all of us. It comes up every time we pick up a book, listen to music or look at art which isn't purely from within the Church. It also comes up when we watch a movie or participate in anything to do with the modern media or contemporary methods of communication.

We have talked about this from time to time here at Monachos. Most seem to feel there is a real place for such things in their lives. But whether from a realistic acceptance of our own weakness or that these things really help us in our deeper spiritual lives is the question we keep coming back to with no clear answer.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Karena Hryniuk]

Rick,

You are right to bring up these things with Christian fellow men. In the debased society we're in, one just doesn't pop into the church by way of immediately seeing the light (tada!) It usually takes time and realization from one level through to another. Before re-entering the church some years ago I myself did the yoga/energy healing thing. One can practice these natural approaches for a while but they in time hopefully will feel that big hole or missing piece to the puzzle, so to speak. It's just another form of trying to communicate with God without the Vessel.

For any Christian to gnash teeth and twist noses at anything in society today would be the biggest error. To dive into these surroundings, keeping near them with observance and meekness, accepting them for who they are entirely in their moment is a wise idea. Rather than viewing childposes and shaved heads with negativity I might say we should keep them as doors to the room of Christ and..as our closest neighbors.

I haven't seen him in a coffee shop per say, but Father Raphael truly is a soul of calm nature and humility. An example for all of us to ensue.

Good conversation here :)

In Christ
~Karena

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick, Dear Fr. Raphael,

I don't want to veer off Rick's course here, but think I shan't by picking up two out of the many excellent points being made by Fr. Raphael.


Outside of the Church a person can be attracted by the imperishable. But yet because he does not come to know the Source of this imperishability some degree of confusion and incompleteness will remain.

Will such a person be saved?
The short answer to this is that we cannot know; it is not our province to know, either. It is ours to know what the Church teaches us, and it is our part to follow those teachings; that, we have assurance is the Way, the Truth and the Light. In that sense, more is demanded of us, since we are shown the road to salvation. As the passage from St. Clement I quoted earlier suggests, God can extend salvation as He sees fit, and any comments we might make are beside the point.

It does seem an imperative, however, that if we know the way, we should try to share it with others; the Great Commission is something we are not, perhaps, as good at as we might be.

The second point is along this line:

Which is to say that the practices of other non-western cultures may contain real insights about the reality of the human being as a psycho-somatic creature. But central to Orthodoxy is how we relate to this temple of the Holy Spirit.

I agree though that this question is very important to all of us. It comes up every time we pick up a book, listen to music or look at art which isn't purely from within the Church. It also comes up when we watch a movie or participate in anything to do with the modern media or contemporary methods of communication.

Here Owen's point about Orthodoxy not being a debating society seems highly relevant. One of my favourite ways of relaxing (apart from Monachos, of course!) is to listen to medieval Church music, all of which is Roman Catholic, and most of which lifts me into a realm far removed from this world. Some of it is, in fact, Orthodox music in the sense that it comes from western Europe before 1054, but it is far removed from what most of us would think of as Orthodox. The Church music of the Elizabethan period is another of my staples - without Byrd and Tallis my life would be much poorer. Not at all from within 'the Church' in the sense that we might understand it, but of God I have no doubt: the opening bars of Spem in Alium have to be some of the most sublime sounds ever enunciated in praise of Our Lord.

So my soul can be nourished by Christian mysticism and music from outside the Church.

The modern angle is more problematic. On the whole I engage less with the modern world than I might; that is my choice. I find relatively little in it that nourishes my soul, and much that besmirches my mind. Like many of us, I am easily offended by T.V., so I watch little of it; and even that little is sometimes not good for me. But we have a choice in these things, and if others make a different choice, that's fine too.

Orthodoxy is Christianity with nothing added and nothing subtracted; we come to it in humility and repentance, in the hope of forgiveness and the spirit of worship; within it we grow towards our true nature in Him. If other things feed that progress and that process, fair enough - but too much of the soil upon which we are rooted is spiritually impoverished.

The saddest thing I see is young people searching for an answer and a purpose, and looking towards what they think of as 'eastern mysticism' - and missing the true 'eastern mysticism' of Orthodoxy. We have no need to be defensive - if we make known what is on offer it is what those youngsters heading towards Buddhism are hoping to find; but why are we so bad at guiding them towards the path of right worship?

In Christ,

John

[Theophrastus]

We have no need to be defensive - if we make known what is on offer it is what those youngsters heading towards Buddhism are hoping to find; but why are we so bad at guiding them towards the path of right worship?

Perhaps the popularity of Buddhism and Yoga in the West is actually a preparation for greater interest in Orthodoxy. One of the primary reasons for South/East Asian practices' popularity is the importance many of them place on contemplation; meditation; an inner (and outer) ascesis, perhaps culminating in a profound spiritual metanoia; and (especially prevalent among the Islamic Sufis and Hindic bhaktis) a personal relationship with divinity, eventually opening to radical self-surrender. Unless you're hardcore Pentecostal, you just don't find these things in much of Western Christianity. It's pretty thin at your local Methodist church these days, and you have to scratch under the surface to find it in Catholicism. Social activism is great, but it's not the sine non qua of the Church.

Even though Orthodoxy has officially been in America for more than 200 years, it was eclipsed by Protestantism and Catholicism. Buddhism, Yoga, et al. ("BYEA") has had more than a hundred years to really permeate Western civilization, and BYEA's clear distinctiveness from Western religions made its presence easier to notice and respond to. By 1970, near the height of the counter-cultural movement, the Eastern Ways were primed to ride the wave of youthful experimentation and God-seeking. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has become well-known in America only starting in the late 1970s, a decade that I regard as the real "introduction" of Orthodoxy to America as a whole. The Orthodox challenge to America has only just begun.

[Rick H.]

FRV Final

Dear Father Raphael,

I originally thought the conversation centering on your most recent postings was going to be a very long discussion that would last many weeks. But, after reading your last contribution, I am very happy to see that we have reached a most successful conclusion of the matter as far as I am concerned. And, it seems so inadequate to simply say thank you very much at this point; but, I mean this very sincerely. Hopefully, this conversation has ministered to some others as much as it has to me during the last four weeks or so, and also made a real difference. And, hopefully, in the future as others type in some of the key words used here, this will continue to minister to others as well. I have searched some older threads here on monachos recently, in which the conversations have taken place in years past, but they spoke to me in a very helpful and fresh way. So, not that anyone died and made me the official thank you person here :) but thank you very much. If you ever make it to the midwest again, let me know if you have time, and I would like to buy you a cup of coffee, even if I have to cross a couple of states for that pleasure.

In your last posting you summed up by saying:





We have talked about this from time to time here at Monachos. Most seem to feel there is a real place for such things in their lives. But whether from a realistic acceptance of our own weakness or that these things really help us in our deeper spiritual lives is the question we keep coming back to with no clear answer.



and, as I consider the question of:

-- a realistic acceptance of our own weakness?

-- these things really helping us in our deeper spiritual lives?

I see that this *is* what it all boils down to. In some ways, possibly, this is like a discussion of different herbal supplements whereby there is no clinical research to provide an indisputable objective basis from which to say if there is really a benefit realized by the one who pays for these capsules or drinks these teas in the hopes of finding "a real help." Or, for that matter who is to say if an unwanted or unhelpful side effect is realized at times in lieu of a benefit. In other words, as it relates to real or imagined "helps" in the life of the individual, "who is to say?"

In Christ,

Rick

PS From the most helpful transitional note from Karena, and including the last two postings from John, as well as the most excellent post from Jetavan . . . there is a very high octane conversation that is begging to be explored. And, these things are all interconnected aren't they? There is no veering on your part by the way John . . .maybe a little "tailgating" :) but, definitely no veering. Sometimes a good doctor will try to motivate one to move in a desirable direction (or sometimes peddle a little faster on the excercise bike :) So, I guess we will see which way the Wind blows next; but as for now maybe we can all say a prayer for Father Raphael, that God would continue to use him as a tool for the benefit of all.

[Rick H.]

Is There Salvation Outside of the Orthodox Church?


Dear All:

On 3/9 in this thread John Charmley said:




I fear some may find it shocking that I should think that there can be salvation outside the Orthodox Church, there is good patristic support for such a position.



Then John went on to support his position from a place of patristic theology.

In both this thread and the previous An American Orthodoxy? thread, (as well as in a recently started thread by Morgan McPherson) there have been questions and discussions which are building towards one question. I think it is possible that after all is said and done, we should address this question here in this thread.

What could possibly be more at the Heart of Salvation (as we consider the idea of salvation outside the Orthodox Church') than a consideration of "A Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ." We have just spent some time considering "A Personal Spiritual Practice" in a most helpful way. And, there is more to be considered there as Father Raphael has indicated in his last post. However, now, God willing, as we move to the True Heart of the matter and now consider the salvation found in Christ and a personal relationship with Him, hopefully, we can continue to be as clear and direct as we have been recently here on this thread.

Sometimes assertions and propositions like John's above bring such a heavenly light on a subject that it makes it somewhat hard to talk around what is being said without this becoming very obvious to all. In the above John is saying clearly:

There is Salvation outside of the Orthodox Church!

And, there have been several very high-caliber contributions on this thread and the previous A.O. thread that are speaking equally as clear about this subject. Especially, Learner's last post on the A.O. thread. He is exactly right when he points to my use of the word "determine." And, I will move in this direction next. Learner is characteristically on this topic like a guided missile--he is locked on this target. But, the above proposition as it relates to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is our topic now.

Is there salvation outside of the Orthodox Church?

Possibly, we need to define the word salvation? If one reads the personal profiles of those involved in this discussion to date, one will find a very wide circle of influences among us. So possibly we are not all using the word salvation in the same way . What does the word sanctification mean? I would venture a guess that it is possible that we are not all using these words in the same way, and as anyone who is familiar with Church History and the difficulty in language between the east and the west knows, there needs to be a clear defining of terms.

And, again, I will suggest that if this question is addressed and there are any conclusions at all that come about here, then many other questions, such as Morgan's will be answered with great speed and clarity! As Morgan also well said yesterday, the Biblical author's were working from a set of assumptions, as were the patristic writers--and this no small aspect. So we will see, God willing, we will have an 'open and honest discussion' beginning now.

In Christ,

Rick

[I]In the End, the Beginning

[Rick H.]

`Is This Really What WE want to say?: "Is it a system or is it a Person?"

Dear Herman and All,

Herman, you have proved, over and over, that you are "the salt of monachos" (a person considered as the best or noblest part of monachos). Literally, in 'my book' of inspirational quotes, you are a champ! And, as I'm sure you know, there are some people who when you begin to dialogue with, and reason with, characteristically become defensive and emotional. This happens to best of us at times. In fact, I am not sure that some of my postings of late do not reflect a degree of frustration and the need for a vacation. But, it seems to me that you are not this way. I have observed that you have no problem being direct when it is called for, but I have never seen anything but a very gracious (and caring) person coming through in your writing. So, I am going to bet all my chips that you will not be offended as I bring in some of your writing from other posts that you made yesterday , in order to interact with what has been said. Hopefully, this will be okay and not prevent us from having a cup of coffee one day together :) And, I am not exactly sure how far away in minutes your neck of the wood is, in Maryland, from my neck of the woods, here in Ohio; but, if about 12:30 or 1:00 later today I hear a car screeching its tires down my road, and I notice a brick flying through my living room window then I will take that as a no for my offer of coffee one day :)

So, anyway, basically what I am doing here is pointing to some things and asking the question is this really what we want to say?

In the following post from "Which version to use?" you have written:




This is, of course, an issue of great importance to the Protestants, but not so much, I believe for us. In as much as [B]the Protestants are bereft of Holy Tradition to guide them, having nothing but "THE BIBLE" from which to "divine" their Faith, a "correct" translation is, of course, paramount. Otherwise, how do they know that they didn't get it wrong due to a mistranslation? They go so far as to translate the KJV into Greek and Russian so that they can "share" the Gospel! Talk about taking coals to Newcastle! But we have Holy Tradition and the rich tapestry of Divine services . . .



I have placed some words above in bold face type to see at a glance how in this first paragraph at the speed of light we set up a hard and fast way of knowing that allows no room at all for a supra-polarity. Look at how fast we are drawing battle lines and dividing up into warring factions to begin our conversation. And, this in itself is not a problem. Especially, in an arena like this electronic discussion forum, which is biased, it can be very helpful at times as we cut to the chase and bring about "a manifestation of consciousness" as well as sometimes demonstrate "a spiritual indigence" (which is both very ironic at times and the goal of all true spiritual direction). However, is this really WHAT we want to say? And, to be more specific . . . WHAT in the world are we actually saying here? Who in the world are "the Protestants?" Can you point to "the Protestants?" And, this gets back to a point I was making on the previous A.O. thread about how we know (viz. our being modeling our knowing) but that for another day possibly. But, do you see what I am saying, everything that you have said in this quote is based on an "us" and a "them" way of knowing, but the "them" is a phantom group that cannot be pointed to in reality. And, when "we" consider who the "us" is that you are referring to in the above, there are usually about one or two of "us" here at monachos who are willing to even just consider for a minute who the "us" IS. And, I have already admitted here, that I possibly need a vacation, and I probably will take one very soon, but do you or does anyone see what I am saying here? From my point of view this whole situation (not your email Herman--but this whole thing) seems a little "nutty" to me. Almost everyone here on monachos will be more than happy to speak in very general terms and paint very broad brush strokes as we all discuss and ponder and share our wisdom about the picture as we see it. And, most if not all are willing to contribute to the "us" and "them" conversations, but there are really probably about one or two people here, maybe three who are willing to move beyond phantom groups as it relates to the Body of Christ, and as it relates to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ! Why is this? What does this mean?

There is a mentality here (not you Herman--I have long left your post if I ever really got to it, and seem to be moving in another direction now) . . . there is a mentality here in which "competing systems" are presented and the individual is forced to pick and choose which system is the "right One." And, if you think about it this is starting to sound like a trip to Las Vegas now more than anything else. We are now starting to use the language of "betting" and "odds." We are basing our way of knowing and being on "chances" of what seems to be the best bet. And, then we move forward and place "all of our chips" on the system that seems the best to us. And, then we make a commitment to this system and we are sold out to it . . . because we HAVE to BE . . . because we are not just betting a days wage or a weeks paycheck or even a whole months pay here are we? No we are placing our eternal destiny on the board when we place all our chips on the "color" which represents our system when we do this.

So maybe this is why so many do not want to consider anything more than what they do, because they cannot! Not that they may not, but they really cannot. In some ways, just as we identified a fear driven component in a previous situation here on monachos as it related to bulwarks that have been established based on a very sophisticated system of non-surrender which is applied to the here-and-now, there is a similar dynamic at work as we consider the here-after in our present consideration. Clearly, there are some well defined points of departure between the two situations, however, it occurs to me now that there are also some perfect parallels here as it relates to a perceived pulling out of the rug from under the one who has both feet firmly planted on it.

So, I had started out in one direction here with this post, but I seem to have taken another avenue. But, I think we have ended up in the same place whereby we attempt to move beyond phantoms and universals to a place where we can ask again, is there a difference between all who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and He with "them," and those who are in the Body of Christ which is His Ekklesia?

If there is a difference between "them" and "us" as it relates to the one who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then who will draw this line of division? Who determines this battle line? Or for that matter Who is the One that comes to us with a sword?

What is the Heart of Salvation! This is the question that I am posing here for us to examine by means of patristic theology or monastic theology or Bible. And, to possibly restate this question in a way that makes it more meaningful and brings it down out of the clouds somewhat I will ask, Is it a system or is it a Person that you personally are willing to bet everything on? Is it a system that you have a personal relationship with? God willing it is not!

As Father Raphael has caused me to consider recently here on this thread, what does it really mean to lay it "all" aside

In Christ,
Rick

Mat 10:34

[Rick H.]

Dear anyone,

According to Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev's "The Mystery of Faith," he uses a quote of St. Augustine to validate that although we know where the Church is, we shouldn't be surprised for those who were considered not in the Church to be judged as if they were:

"When dealing with the difficult question of Christian divisions, the Orthodox may wish to bear in mind that God alone knows where the limits of the Church are. As St Augustine said, ‘many of those who on earth considered themselves to be alien to the Church will find that on the day of Judgment that they are her citizen; and many of those who thought themselves to be members of the Church will, alas, be found to be alien to her’. To declare that outside of the Orthodox Church there is not and cannot be the grace of God would be to limit God’s omnipotence, to confine Him to a framework outside of which He has no right to act."

Unfortunately, +Hilarion did not give a source for that quote, and I have a problem finding the source of the quote. Would anyone here know the source of St. Augustine's quote?

I would be indebted to your answer.

God bless.

Mina


Dear All,

Above is a post from Mina on a new thread initiated this morning. I do not have source for her, but what is said above applies to our thread here. And, it reminds me of another saying of our present day which goes something like, "When WE Christians make our move to our eternal home, WE may very well be surprised at who is there, as well as who is not there."

In Christ,
Rick

Rom 11:33-36

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Above is a post from Mina on a new thread initiated this morning. I do not have source for her


I think Mina is a he named after St Minas.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

I think Mina is a he named after St Minas.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Whoops! [insert embarrassed smiley face] Very sorry Mina!

BTW Father Raphael, I noticed a smiley face or two using the yellow and black art in some of your postings, here in the regular areas of monachos, and I am wondering if you would like to spill the beans on how this is done so I can be cool too and not have to use these lame smilies that I do ;) Not that I could ever be as cool as a Canadian or one who lives in Canada :)

Rick

PS What can I say other than, "Baseball has been good to me!" as spoken by a friend of Father Guido Sarducci :)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Whoops! [insert embarrassed smiley face] Very sorry Mina!

BTW Father Raphael, I noticed a smiley face or two using the yellow and black art in some of your postings, here in the regular areas of monachos, and I am wondering if you would like to spill the beans on how this is done so I can be cool too and not have to use these lame smilies that I do ;) Not that I could ever be as cool as a Canadian or one who lives in Canada :)

Rick

PS What can I say other than, "Baseball has been good to me!" as spoken by a friend of Father Guido Sarducci :)


I don't know. Sometimes they appear as available on the message pane and then they seem to disappear. Not sure why. Maybe they're not available on strict fast days or something.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

http://www.smileycollector.com/images/patriotic/smiley4th.gifThanks Father !!!



(come to think of it, this could be useful to wish my new English friends a Happy 4th of July in a few months as well!)

[Herman Blaydoe]

One hundred Episcopalian, Canadian Anglican and Orthodox Christian clergy and laity, some from as far away as Bar Harbor, Maine; Denver, Colo.; Lakeland, Fla., and Toronto, Ont., attended “Faith of Our Fathers: A Colloquium on Orthodox for Anglicans” Jan. 29-30, 2007 sponsored by St. Andrew House Center for Orthodox Christian Studies.

The colloquium was designed to explain Orthodox Christianity to Episcopalians and Anglicans, according to the Most Rev. Nathaniel, Archbishop of Detroit and the Romanian Episcopate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), and founder and president of St. Andrew House. Ancient Faith Radio (http://ancientfaithradio.com/) recorded the sessons and is happy to make them available for download. There is more information at the website of the St. Andrews House Center for Orthodox Christian Studies. (http://www.orthodoxdetroit.com/)

I am told that there have been several conversions already, and requests to hold the colloquium in four other cities; Phoenix, Houston, Baltimore and Boston. The Holy Spirit at work?

To God be the Glory!

[Paul Cowan]

If they show up in Houston, I will let you know what happens.
Paul

[Rick H.]

One of the members of our Monachos community has experienced a personal tragedy of which I can imagine no worse. May all who read this offer a personal prayer for this person and this person's family as you feel compelled. And, for this person, I would like to offer a sonnet by Keats in the hope that it will bring the comfort and the Love of the Holy Spirit now and in days ahead:



ON THE GRASSHOPPER AND THE CRICKET

The poetry of earth is never dead:
When all the birds are faint with the hot sun,
And hide in cooling trees, a voice will run
From hedge to hedge about the new-mown mead;
That is the Grasshopper's--he takes the lead
In summer luxury,--he has never done
With his delights; for when tired out with fun
He rests at ease beneath some pleasant weed.
The poetry of earth is ceasing never:
On a lone winter evening, when the frost
Has wrought a silence, from the stove there shrills
The Cricket's song, in warmth increasing ever,
And seems to one in drowsiness half lost,
The Grasshopper's among some grassy hills.


In Christ's Love,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear John and All,

It is as the Good Doctor has shared on another thread yesterday:





Another two quotations from St. Isaac to conclude:

"When we have reached Love, we have reached God and our journey is complete."



Talk about a thing of beauty.

If I remember correctly, when I say, "In the End, the Beginning;" I am ripping-off Moltmann, who is in turn ripping-off T.S. Elliot. But, the point is, when I say "In the End, the Beginning." I am saying EXACTLY what St. Isaac concludes above about Love in his Theology of Love.

John--I wonder if you have a reference for me to use when I cite this in the future please?


And, also, John, when you share the following as you have also yesterday:




St. Clement of Alexandria (Stromatae, 6. 5, 38.4) writes of the specific revelation of the Gospel as 'the tradition through the Son', and contrasts it with the theistic foundation of faith in God the Father which Christians shared with educated Greeks. When the Fathers talk about 'tradition' they are, it seems to me, talking about, literally, 'delivering the Goods.

Authority (which is at the heart of this question) is claimed for Christian truths in so far they are 'handed on' from the Apostles. Thus Irenaeus in Against Heresies (3. 3. 2) bases his argument on 'the tradition which the Roman Church possesses from the apostles through its foundation and organization by Peter and Paul', and commends the Church at Ephesus (Against Heresies 3.3.4) as a 'true witness to the apostles' tradition' owing to its prolonged association with Sts. Paul and John.



I agree with you that they are "literally, 'delivering the Goods." And, also the second paragraph is much appreciated as you speak to the subject of the question of authority as it relates to a "true witness to the apostles tradition," which I assume is to be attributed to Irenaeus.

And, if we place together everything that has been shared in the above from St. Isaac and Irenaeus, just as you have presented it, I think we have moved deeply into the heart of the matter here in a way that is very easy to be entreated.

Are we talking about a system here? I don't think so.


In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

I shall check out the source for the St. Isaac quotation. I suspect it is Bishop Hilarion's translation, since the one I am more familiar with is longer, and in Sebastian Brock's edition of The Wisdom of St. Isaac (Gorgias Press, 2003), p. 12, reads:

When we have found love, we eat the Heavenly Bread, and receive nourishment without labour of weariness. The heavenly Bread is He who came down from Heaven and gives life to the world (cf. John 6:33). This is the food of angels (Psalm 78:25). He who has found love consumes Christ at all times, and becomes immortal from then on.

But the Bishop's translation, in The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (2000) has the last sentence in more luminous form; I shall try to find the page reference. Obviously one of the first signs of Lenten exhaustion that I can't recall it!

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I am sitting here with my coffee a little later than usual today, and I am viewing the Tradition, Scripture, Intellect and Experience area of monachos. It is interesting to me, as I observe that all four of the most active threads at the present in this area are dealing the same subject right now. There are different titles for these threads: "Question of Authority of the Church Fathers," "A Question about Scripture and the Foundation of the Church," "The Heart of Salvation!," and "An American Orthodoxy?". However, all four of these threads are really dealing with the same thing right now, aren't they? They are all dealing with "The Question of Authority."

There are lots of questions here. But, there is very little discussion. As has been said, spring has sprung and the grass has riz. So possibly, the nicer weather is to be attributed to the lack of response and thinking on this topic. Or, maybe there is some other reason why modern orthodox do not want to consider this subject very closely?

There have been many contributions which I feel actually have provided many answers from the "received" Orthodox theologians that have been quoted on the "An American Orthodoxy?" thread from its earliest days (including but not limited to Ziziolas). And, on other threads there are treasures such as the recent quoting of Nesteruk on Maria's "Contemplation of the Divine Logos" thread. And, even just today, John quoting Dr. Steenberg on the "Question of Authority" thread. So there is no shortage of answers in this sense. In fact there are great rewards to be realized for the one who willing to read and think about what these three men who have been quoted are really saying as it relates to the question of authority. But, then again, even here, "Who 'determines' who are the received theologians?"

Possibly, there is not the desire or the fire power to hold such a conversation here in this monachos community at this time. Or, possibly the conclusion is foregone, at this point in time and history, but yet it is not a popular conclusion as it relates to what 'we' have been taught by 'those' closest to us? I am not sure. The recent popular threads on Augustine, and those which seem to be referencing him of late really just cause me to shake my head for once, and to "wonder what they are all about for once." I guess turn about is fair play at times. But, I don't bang my head against the wall anymore like I used to do when I would think something like, one of these days, it seems like the popular western Fathers like Augustine are going to be brought into a full harmony with the popular eastern Fathers like whoever. Because these divisions and ways of thinking that are limited to a dualistic method really are absurd and really do just create a state of stupor for all involved. And, I reflect back on John Cassian and his struggles . . . but all this has been said before many many times here and elsewhere.

However, and making use of a black and white way of knowing, one thing that I am sure about at the present is that either Orthodoxy is a living breathing body that is validated by the presence of the Holy Spirit, and it is a faith that should be seen as a cumulative experience evolving within the boundaries expressed in dogmatic definitions, or it is not.

In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Marie-Duquette]

Rick,

"In the end is the beginning!"

How wonder-full it would be if we who are posting on the most active threads on this Board could meet somewhere, at some time over coffee or perhaps around the newly blossomed yellow crocus in my back yard; and truly "contemplate" the Word of God alive Today in the Church, in the World, in this speck of universe where I live!

And, that topic which is almost "taboo": AUTHORITY could be simply approached in the Light of the Holy Spirit, remembering the so beautiful quote of St Isaac the Syrian: " When one has reached LOVE ..."

Who is the HEART of our Salvation, at the Heart of our Existence?

This weekend the Church commemorates St. Mary of Egypt and The Annunciation to the Virgin Mary on the same day! What a blessing for me, for us! Can we see this blessing with the eye of our Heart? Both Women have something to say to us. And not in an abundance of words; but through their example of life! Their "YES" to the God of their Salvation in Repentance in the desert, and in Surrender to the Will of God ... "Let it be done unto me according to your Word"!

Who is the AUTHOR? Who is at Work here? at the "Beginning as well as at the End, and especially in the HEART of each life?

marie_duquette

[John Charmley]

Dear Marie, Dear Rick,

The prospect of all being able to meet up for coffee overlooking those crocuses is an appealing one in any event; all the more so on one of those grey, drizzling cold days which in England pass for the advent of spring; if the grass has any sense it will subside.

What you say, Marie, about the Holy Theotokos and St. Mary of Egypt does, indeed, get to what is at the heart of our salvation; their obedience and humility are patterns to us all.

This, from the Gregorian Liturgy struck me as relevant to this theme as it is developing:


"You 'Lover of mankind' created me.
You are not dependent on my service, but I am dependent on your master ship.
Through your unlimited grace you created me out of nothing .
You established and upheld the heaven as a ceiling for me, and you firmed the ground for my steps.
For me you restrained the sea.
For me you made the animals.
You subjected every thing under my feet, and satisfied all my needs, with your gracious works.
You created me, blessed me by the placement of Your Hand.
You have depicted in me the image of Your Authority.
Created in me the gift of reasoning and speech.
And opened your paradise "Garden" for my enjoyment.
You granted me to know You.
You materialized for me the Tree of Life.
And taught me the thorn of death.
One plant you prohibited me from eating.
This is the only one, which you told me not to eat from.
Through my own will I ate, rejecting Your Law through my own brainwork.
I ignored your canons.
I snatched for my self the death sentence."

How marvellous it is then that as we are told in 2 Corinthians 8:9:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

The Tradition is that which is handed down, and the Church is its inheritor. As we are told in Matthew 18:18:

The Lord Jesus Christ gave the authority to the Apostles and
their successors by saying, “Assuredly I say to you, whatever
you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

The Church has performed this duty from what has usually been accepted as the very first Church Council in Jerusalem in 45 A.D. Then the discussion turned on a matter that has been of great interest to us all ever since - how those from another culture might be brought into the Church. The Apostles decided not to make it difficult for the Gentiles, saying: "For it seemed good to
the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:28-29).

Subsequent councils, ecumenical and local, have laid down teachings, decisions and disciplines for the Church which have been included in Church Tradition.

But what a great pity it is, and what a source of shame to us all, that we should still incur the rebuke offered by St. Clement to the Corinthians:

Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another?”

There are, however, as with the spring here in the UK, a few signs of growth.

In Christ,


John

[Nina]

This weekend the Church commemorates St. Mary of Egypt and The Annunciation to the Virgin Mary on the same day!

marie_duquette

Dear Marie,

Really? In my church St. Mary of Egypt is on Palm Sunday I think.

Please feel free to teach me or share your tradition because I have no idea how things are in different churches.

P.S Happy Annunciation!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Marie,

Really? In my church St. Mary of Egypt is on Palm Sunday I think.

Please feel free to teach me or share your tradition because I have no idea how things are in different churches.

P.S Happy Annunciation!


The fifth Sunday of Great Lent is always dedicated to St Mary of Egypt.

But she is also commemorated on April 1 which if your parish is on the New Calendar is next Sunday. For those on the Old calendar she is celebrated on Bright Saturday this year- a real indication of how early Pascha is this year as most times April 1 (OC) falls within Great Lent.

For those on the New Calendar tomorrow is Annunciation while for those on the Old calendar it is on Holy Saturday.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Marie and John,

Thank you both very much for your posts today. I feel very strongly that the Holy Spirit is at work in a mighty way in both of these posts. Not unlike a recent conversation with Father Raphael here in this thread, I think we have at our disposal a wisdom from above that is seen when both of these contributions are harmonized. I would like to spend more time considering what is being said here, and God willing, begin interacting with these tomorrow or Monday. I really think that in these two brief posts are everything that is needed for a very conclusive point of view as it relates to the question of authority and a theology of Love together. I will be interested to see if anyone else weighs in in the meantime.

Thanks again very much.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Nina, good to see you here in this thread.

[Nina]

The fifth Sunday of Great Lent is always dedicated to St Mary of Egypt.

But she is also commemorated on April 1 which if your parish is on the New Calendar is next Sunday. For those on the Old calendar she is celebrated on Bright Saturday this year- a real indication of how early Pascha is this year as most times April 1 (OC) falls within Great Lent.

For those on the New Calendar tomorrow is Annunciation while for those on the Old calendar it is on Holy Saturday.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael,
Your Blessings!

Wow! Thank you for the information! I had no idea. I assumed that OC and NC this year had basically the same Lenten calendar. I do not know why...

Please explain to me. Bright Saturday that you mention is the Saturday after the Holy Resurrection? And another question. We celebrate St. Mary of Egypt twice during Lent?

Sorry for all these questions and maybe changing the course of the thread briefly, and I hope the thread initiator is fine with this.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

FRV II .ii "A Purposeful Tension"
***Dear John: I am in the process of composing this post, and I am just now getting to the part about a division between 'salvation & sanctification' as some see it as opposed to the view that there is no division. And, I just noticed your last post (which should be the one above this one if I hurry), but all this is to say that possibly we cannot have this discussion without including the soteriological aspect? I think I am hoping for a foundationalism here (on Christ) that allows room (fences or fluid borders on the foundation) for some practices that do 'crack real shells' that benefit real people, even if they are merely psychological or physiological helps associated with a 'natural light.' But, I promise I have no agenda other than to learn, so maybe I should relax my grip here? Do you see what I mean? I guess we will see as we move along, one step at a time. There are actually two conversations going on here, but, maybe it is not possible to have the one without the other.


Dear Father Raphael,

Well, here we are . . . as it has been said by another, "Wherever you go, There you are." :) And, I have spent so much time with your writing, that I do not feel the need to take what I have bullet pointed and quoted to this point and go over it with you any longer. I think it is very clear. From my point of view, what you are saying is both very clear and very beautiful. So I would like to just start interacting with it, and you, now. And, please know that I have no agenda here, and even though at times I may ask some questions that I already know the answers to, for the remainder of our time discussing your writing, this is *not* the M.O. and the intent is to learn. Possibly, to learn what may be considered in-bounds and what may be considered out-of-bounds as we consider how and what we use for building materials, as we build on the foundation of Jesus Christ of which there is no other. And, also, as we consider a path in Christ as opposed to a path outside of Christ.

I am not exactly sure how there has come to be such a focus on the Buddhist in this thread, by so many of us, but I guess this actually works very well. I do appreciate very much most of the Buddhadharma writers and adherents that I have come into contact with. And, Thomas Merton was misunderstood by many when he said [I am paraphrasing] that "To the extent that Buddhism intersects with Christianity, he hopes to be the best Buddhist that he can be," but, possibly this is a very good means/group to bring into our discussion of an historic Orthodox Christian approach to a personal spiritual practice.

It has been said that "Buddhism is the most psychological of spiritualities and it is the most spiritual of psychologies." And, as we consider a personal spiritual practice this does include the mystical/spiritual as well as the psychological (and the physical). Therefore, in the following quote by you, possibly we can get a fingerhold now by at least briefly considering the Buddhist and the Christian together:
Rick


Personally, Rick I do not believe you have understood the essentials of Father Raphaels' patient and clearly outlined points regarding the Orthodox Christian Church, Christ, 'natural light', 'egg shells', temporary/final faith in Christ, in fact any thing that he has said.

The 'focus' on Buddhism in this thread is your desire. Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity are polar opposites. Thomas Merton's statement on Buddhism/Christianity paraphrased above is pure spiritual delusion.

We do pray for you.

May you find the Person of Christ, and thereby the persona/hypostasis, that before the Incarnation we do witness in the Old Testament true indications of holiness. The Revelation on Mount Sinai: 'I AM THAT I AM' denotes that GOD is PERSONAL. There is no impersonal in the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, born of the Virgin Mary IS GOD.

All who came before Him and all who have come after Him are false shephards.

Finally, outside the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is only darkness.

Do not misunderstand me, or twist and turn my words.

The Buddhist metaphyic is a return to NON BEING. It is spiritual suicide.

It is the Luciferian temptation of Adam.

GOD is LOVE, GOD is the HOLY TRINITY. How do we find this God of Love? How do we turn our hearts in REPENTANCE and find CHRIST? Absolute following of His commandment:

"If any man come to me and hate not...his own life...he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)


Quotation:
Originally Posted by petru voda
'...whosoever doth not bear his cross, and follow after me'...who 'forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple.'
(Luke 14:27, 33)

'If any man come to me, and hate not...his own life...he cannot be my disciple.' (Luke 14:26)

'The normal consequence of keeping the Lord's commmandments is an extreme reduction of ourselves - a self-emptying. Without sincere recognition that we are indeed devils incarnate in our fall, we shall never arrive at fulness of repentance. Through total repentance we break loose from the deadly embrace of selfish individualism and begin to contemplate the divine univeraslity of Christ.

'Who "loved us unto the end." [cf. John 13.1] When we hate ourselves for the evil that lives in us, then it is that the boundless horizons of the love commanded us are revealed.

'Apart from Christ we shall never embrace the whole world in the vivifying flame of the grace that cometh down from on High; nor perceive the ontological dimensions of the 'second commandment' - "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" [cf. Matthew 22:37-40].

'It was given to Blessed Staretz Silouan to pray for the whole world as for himself. May the Lord grant to each and to all to behold the Light of such prayer, through which the primordial image of man is restored.

'Whosoever has not come close to this state should hesitate to call himself a Christian, knowing and feeling shame for his unworthiness.

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself" (meaning all his old notions and concepts) "and take up his cross, and follow me...If any man come to me, and hate not...his own life, he cannot be my disciple...He is not worthy of me.' [cf. Matthew 16:24; 10:37-38; Luke 14:26,33].

'Our God is a consuming fire' [Hebrews 12:29]. Divine love is the kernel of eternal Being. In it all the other attributes of Divinity - the Wisdom, the Kingdom,the Power, and Light - find their loftiest expression. It contains the beauty of the eternally unskakeable Kingdom. Christ's love is the revelation of the Mystery of the Father's love, too.

'Painful is the way that leads to the acquistion of holy love - which may be why so many renounce Christianity, preferring other roads to the cross of this love. But there is no other truth, just as there is no other God. [cf. John 14:6]

[Rick H.]

Dear Father Raphael,

. . . Sorry for all these questions and maybe changing the course of the thread briefly, and I hope the thread initiator is fine with this.




Dear Nina,

I have it on good authority that your participation here is very welcome.


http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01 Rick

[Nina]

Thank you so much Father Raphael and Marie for teaching me this! We also celebrated St. Mary of Egypt today at my church and I did not know. Now I will remember it for ever. :)

Thank you Rick for being so cool with the thread diversion!
Please continue according to the theme of the thread because Father Raphael explained every thing to me at another thread he so kindly started: 'liturgical cycles'.

Happy Annunciation!

[Rick H.]

Personally, Rick I do not believe you have understood the essentials of Father Raphaels' patient and clearly outlined points regarding the Orthodox Christian Church, Christ, 'natural light', 'egg shells', temporary/final faith in Christ, in fact any thing that he has said.

The 'focus' on Buddhism in this thread is your desire. Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity are polar opposites. Thomas Merton's statement on Buddhism/Christianity paraphrased above is pure spiritual delusion.

We do pray for you.

May you find the Person of Christ, and thereby the persona/hypostasis, that before the Incarnation we do witness in the Old Testament true indications of holiness. The Revelation on Mount Sinai: 'I AM THAT I AM' denotes that GOD is PERSONAL. There is no impersonal in the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, born of the Virgin Mary IS GOD.

All who came before Him and all who have come after Him are false shephards.

Finally, outside the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is only darkness.

Do not misunderstand me, or twist and turn my words.



Dear Fr. Seraphim,

I think I am noticing a pattern here. And, now I am wondering if there is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde running amuck and creating confusion here on monachos. I was just scrolling up in this thread to re-read Marie and John's most recent contributions, and I noticed that your post from this morning at 6:39 AM had been inserted into this thread sometime I would think in the past hour or so (it's after 11:00 PM now). I have noticed that there seems to be a delay of 12 hours or more between the time you write your posts and when they actually appear on the message boards. Are you aware of this?

So if I have missed any of your other posts that may have been inserted in other threads hours after you have written them (and after they have been buried by other posts), I hope you don't think I was ignoring you--I almost missed this one. If I wouldn't have been scrolling back tonight I would have missed this one.

But, while I am too tired to interact with what you have suggested here this evening, in any real way, because it's past my bedtime now. I would just like to say that I sure hope you are wrong when you say I didn't understand anything that Father Raphael had said in our recent discussion. The discussion itself and what I took away from this discussion is very meaningful to me! As I scroll back even just now I see that Father Raphael's first post to me explaining "the difference . . ." was on February 22 and my final post to him subtitled "FVR FINAL" was on March 11. And, I put a huge amount of effort and hours into considering what Father has said. So, I guess it is possible that I have misunderstood something here that he has said; however, I am not sure what it would be. Would you care to give one example?

As far as the discussion of the Buddhist, I think if you move back to Father Raphael's first post on 2/22 you will see that discussion about "The 'good' man" played a prominent role in our consideration of a personal spiritual practice. And, again, I think if you reread what has been said by Father and me, you will see that we could have used a number of other Indian, Asian, or even possibly the Sufi would have yielded a better case senerio (than the Buddhist) for our discussion of the "good man" outside of Christ.

So, I really don't know what to say at this point. And, possibly it would be best to just move ahead with my intention to work with Marie and John's most excellent posts in tandem. In fact, that is the irony here . . . because the conclusion that I think I am seeing brought out in these two posts actually points to a transcending of exactly what is going on here right now, and instead, an opting for an ontology of Love in just the same fashion that Zizioulas has pointed to Love as being the supreme ontological predicate of the Trinity. Or possibly, you have perceived this already and this is what you are reacting to here as it relates to a proposed meeting of the EO and the OO and the whoever O in Marie's backyard for coffee and contemplation of the yellow crocuses--in the hope that our journey would find a conclusion in the sense of the quote by St. Issac the Syrian that has been referenced here three times recently? I don't know, my eyes are closing now surrounded by a spirit of confusion--looks like no sweet dreams for me tonight.

Also, I agree with your comments about Orthodoxy and Buddhism, while there is significant overlap in much of the ethics and morals as well as 'methods/techniques' involved in some of the personal spiritual practices . . . at the end of the day we do stand on separate shores and when we consider that the great majority of Buddhists are non-theistic, there is no room for a merging of theology at all.

But, "it's bedtime for bonzo" now, as my wife is telling me at the present for the fifth time. So I better sign off before they start throwing dog chew toys at me like last time I was on the computer for too long. So, I will leave it up to you, if you can provide one example of something that I have misunderstood from the recent discussion that I had with Father Raphael then I will hold off on my conclusion(s) from Marie and John and we can pursue this further--my pleasure.

Or possibly, Father Raphael would like to weigh in on this and point out anything that he noticed that I missed? But, if you do not provide one example of what you are talking about then I will assume that you have reread the discussion in its entirety and have a better understanding of what was said about Buddhism, light, and shells in particular, and a better grip on things in general as it relates to the conversation as a whole.

In Christ,
Rick

Truth leading reason


Personally, Rick I do not believe you have understood the essentials of Father Raphaels' patient and clearly outlined points regarding the Orthodox Christian Church, Christ, 'natural light', 'egg shells', temporary/final faith in Christ, in fact any thing that he has said.

The 'focus' on Buddhism in this thread is your desire. Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity are polar opposites. Thomas Merton's statement on Buddhism/Christianity paraphrased above is pure spiritual delusion.

We do pray for you.

May you find the Person of Christ, and thereby the persona/hypostasis, that before the Incarnation we do witness in the Old Testament true indications of holiness. The Revelation on Mount Sinai: 'I AM THAT I AM' denotes that GOD is PERSONAL. There is no impersonal in the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, born of the Virgin Mary IS GOD.

All who came before Him and all who have come after Him are false shephards.

Finally, outside the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is only darkness.

Do not misunderstand me, or twist and turn my words.

The Buddhist metaphyic is a return to NON BEING. It is spiritual suicide.

It is the Luciferian temptation of Adam.

GOD is LOVE, GOD is the HOLY TRINITY. How do we find this God of Love? How do we turn our hearts in REPENTANCE and find CHRIST? Absolute following of His commandment:

"If any man come to me and hate not...his own life...he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)


Quotation:
Originally Posted by petru voda
'...whosoever doth not bear his cross, and follow after me'...who 'forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple.'
(Luke 14:27, 33)

'If any man come to me, and hate not...his own life...he cannot be my disciple.' (Luke 14:26)

'The normal consequence of keeping the Lord's commmandments is an extreme reduction of ourselves - a self-emptying. Without sincere recognition that we are indeed devils incarnate in our fall, we shall never arrive at fulness of repentance. Through total repentance we break loose from the deadly embrace of selfish individualism and begin to contemplate the divine univeraslity of Christ.

'Who "loved us unto the end." [cf. John 13.1] When we hate ourselves for the evil that lives in us, then it is that the boundless horizons of the love commanded us are revealed.

'Apart from Christ we shall never embrace the whole world in the vivifying flame of the grace that cometh down from on High; nor perceive the ontological dimensions of the 'second commandment' - "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" [cf. Matthew 22:37-40].

'It was given to Blessed Staretz Silouan to pray for the whole world as for himself. May the Lord grant to each and to all to behold the Light of such prayer, through which the primordial image of man is restored.

'Whosoever has not come close to this state should hesitate to call himself a Christian, knowing and feeling shame for his unworthiness.

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself" (meaning all his old notions and concepts) "and take up his cross, and follow me...If any man come to me, and hate not...his own life, he cannot be my disciple...He is not worthy of me.' [cf. Matthew 16:24; 10:37-38; Luke 14:26,33].

'Our God is a consuming fire' [Hebrews 12:29]. Divine love is the kernel of eternal Being. In it all the other attributes of Divinity - the Wisdom, the Kingdom,the Power, and Light - find their loftiest expression. It contains the beauty of the eternally unskakeable Kingdom. Christ's love is the revelation of the Mystery of the Father's love, too.

'Painful is the way that leads to the acquistion of holy love - which may be why so many renounce Christianity, preferring other roads to the cross of this love. But there is no other truth, just as there is no other God. [cf. John 14:6]

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick, Dear Fr. Seraphim.

Might I say, firstly, that it is good to have your voice back here, Father, and may I hope that the heavy burden you bear is lightened by the One who told us to place them upon His back?

Your reflections are always ones that direct us to the heart of the matter, and what you say is a reminder to us that, however much ancient, pre-Gospel, philosophers may have glimpsed partial fragments of the greater Truth, it has since been revealed once and for all through His Son, who is the path to salvation.

Your juxtaposing the passages from St. Matthew and St. Luke raises, as your thoughts often do, the tension between 'love' and 'hate'; at the same time we are to love our neighbour as ourself, we are to hate our own life; puzzling, or simply a tension to be explained in the skopos of the Gospel message?

God so loved us that he sent His only-begotten Son that we might be saved; He redeems the world in love. Our human form is the temple for the divine, and through theosis it can, again, become that which it was meant to be. God is love; but love demands our all. What a great mystery is at the heart of our salvation.

I have a much-loved eldest son who is a Baptist pastor. Heavily influenced by too many sermons in the remoter parts of the north of Scotland, he cleaves to the more austere tenets of the stricter Calvinism of Scottish Baptists, and a few Sundays ago he preached in words strikingly similar to yours; he said we were 'devils incarnate in our fallen, sinful state' who should be 'in fear and trembling' of the fate that awaited us outside of His Grace and our works.

When you write, Father, that

Without sincere recognition that we are indeed devils incarnate in our fall, we shall never arrive at fulness of repentance.
I sense a difference, despite the similarity of the words used, and I have a sense, which I cannot quite place into words, of the difference between a Calvinist understanding of these matters, and an Orthodox one.

But, I may be well off track, and if so, I ask pardon and forgiveness for wasting everyone's time. It might, however, be not unuseful to reflect on the theme of love and hate; if we are told to hate ourselves and love our neighbour as we do ourselves, it is only through the Church and its teaching that we can see to the heart of what is otherwise a paradox.

With blessings upon you, Father, and prayers for your burden,

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Beginning to live as if that change had already occurred . . .



Rick,

"In the end is the beginning!"

How wonder-full it would be if we who are posting on the most active threads on this Board could meet somewhere, at some time over coffee or perhaps around the newly blossomed yellow crocus in my back yard; and truly "contemplate" the Word of God alive Today in the Church, in the World, in this speck of universe where I live!

And, that topic which is almost "taboo": AUTHORITY could be simply approached in the Light of the Holy Spirit, remembering the so beautiful quote of St Isaac the Syrian: " When one has reached LOVE ..."

Who is the HEART of our Salvation, at the Heart of our Existence?

This weekend the Church commemorates St. Mary of Egypt and The Annunciation to the Virgin Mary on the same day! What a blessing for me, for us! Can we see this blessing with the eye of our Heart? Both Women have something to say to us. And not in an abundance of words; but through their example of life! Their "YES" to the God of their Salvation in Repentance in the desert, and in Surrender to the Will of God ... "Let it be done unto me according to your Word"!

Who is the AUTHOR? Who is at Work here? at the "Beginning as well as at the End, and especially in the HEART of each life?

marie_duquette

Dear Marie,

Thank you very much for the above post. What a beautiful picture you have painted. I actually am receiving your post and John's which followed as walking hand-in-hand in what is being said. However, I would like to respond to your's first. And, it sounds like there would be at least two of us taking you up on your offer for coffee in the backyard; however, considering the price of air fare for us and any others, I wonder if we could also have a cake :) And, then, thinking of another famous Marie, you may decide to "Let them eat cake." Okay, I know, don't quit my day job.

But, back to business. And, to move straight to the point, I do not want to be associated/labled in any way, shape, or form with what is known as the Emergent Movement or the Emergent Church. As I have been reading about these Emerging Christians over the past few years, I can see why they are considered to be the most controversial and misunderstood movement in the church today. But, being only familiar with the US movement and not the UK movement, I do not want to be associated with them. So, with this clearly stated (I hope), I would also like to say that I have noticed an almost eerie (for the lack of a more spiritual word at the present) resemblance in the thinking of this movement and my own in some areas over the past few years. I have academic papers that I have turned in for both graduate and post graduate programs over the past eight years that are dated and graded so that I can prove 'my' so called thinking, pre-dates published thoughts that were perfectly parallel (using the same words in some cases). However, saying all of that for any who might be familiar with this, I would like to share that just as the Emergent folks see that the church needs to change in some areas, their response is simply that they are beginning to live as if that change had already occurred.

Think about this with me please Marie in light of what you have proposed above on even its most basic level. This is the best definition of An American Orthodoxy[!] that has ever been proposed on this monachos site, and probably ever will be. Where is the division in what you have proposed? It is not there. It is non-existent. It has been transcended! Think about this. Now Orthodoxy is "a term that signals a way of being in the world!" What a novel concept as we look back to the early Church.

"A way of Being in the world."

Yes, as St. Isaac has said, "When we have reached Love, we have reached God, and our journey is complete."

An ontology of Love, a theology of Love, as a way of being in the world. I am very sorry for any who are offended by what is being said here, but frankly, if one cannot hear what is being said here, then one cannot hear anything at all as spoken from a spiritual plane such as from where St. Isaac stands. There is a beauty here, that even though it is served up so poorly by the likes of me, this beauty cannot not be seen by those with eyes to see, and the message that is going forth here today cannot not be heard by those with ears to hear. In this sense, this is such a plain thing. Such a 'simple' thing. Such a beautiful thing. How appropriate that this would come forth at this time of the year that we are in now.

There really is a resurrection that needs to take place in our day and time. And, this is referring to the Great Orthodox Catholic Tradition (GOCT) of which this way of being speaks. Yes, Orthodoxy involves "a means of believing things about the world," it has to. And, yes Orthodoxy is the opposite of heresy. But, how pathetic if this is all that it is. How miserable life is for the one who is 'limited' to this way of knowing and being. This is why these type of christians try to be so controlling/limiting of others, because they want everyone else to be just as miserable as they are. This mentality should be avoided like the plague. This mentality is antithetical to any propositions such as the above, and it only breeds/reproduces itself in the form of other stunted/immature Christians manifesting strife, jealousy, and division/dysfunction.

So, this is just an introduction to where I think we may be heading next in our present evolving discussion here in our electronic monachos assembly. But, thank you very much Marie for this picture that you have painted complete with sights, sounds, smells, and tastes . . . each time I picture you, John, me, and possibly even Learner around a table or all sitting on the same Ground amongst the crocuses just 'exactly' as you have described it Word-for-word:



. . . over coffee or perhaps around the newly blossomed yellow crocus in my back yard; and truly "contemplate" the Word of God alive Today in the Church, in the World, in this speck of universe where I live!


I stop and smile as I see with my minds eye a beautiful picture of a GOCT lighting/pointing the 'way' to a Global Orthodox Christian Village (GOCV). And, ultimately, I can appreciate the words of the poet of this thread who shared several weeks ago the following:

Nowaday,
I simply sit,
and read,
and write,
with knowledge sweet
and deep
I know:
I smile,
and weep,
at my Lord's feet.

In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Rick, John, Nina, Fr.Raphael,and Father Seraphim.

Peace in Christ Jesus our Lord who has come to us "incarnate devils" to ransom us, as He points out to us the Way back to eternal life in Himself, as the Heart of the Trinitarian- Love- revealed through His Incarnation into humanity.

Simply put, I know, but the burden that Christ carried for all of us, for each of us is, unfathomable, indeed! Even if He does call us to take upon ourselves His yoke which He calls "light" and "easy" ...

Why "light" and "easy" ? ...we know this from the Words of Scripture; but, how many of us do really know this experiencially in our personal life as we are graced to encounter Christ as a PERSON in our midst! As the Church says, and we say so often: "Christ is in our midst and He always will be.! "I am with you always even to the end of time." What do we truly mean by these words?

When I invited you to meet me to see the crocuses in my back yard, there was no thought of "Buddhism" but only of the Christ who invited us in His Sermon on the Mount to "CONSIDER THE LILIES ( crocuses) of the fields to see their fragile beauty as harbingers of Springtime, of Resurrection and of New Life!

Since the 24th of March there has been a foot of snow dumped upon them, a lot of wind and rain showers, thunder and lightning ... all of these working with the change of Seasons ... awesome! Glory to God for all Things seen and unseen!

And, the fragile, tiny crocuses/lilies of the fields are still intact! though they have certainly gone through quite a struggle in the past 3 days. Today, the sun is shining, the temperature in very mild, the birds are singing, and Springtime is "groaning into being and new life" just as we,- each one of us-, are, at this cusp of the Holy Week. . .

"Consider the lilies of the fields, and see how they neither spin or nor weave, and yet your Father in Heaven cares for them," ... so, as I personally contemplate this series of events in the life of my personal "crocuses" I pray to Our Loving, compassionate and all merciful God and Savior Jesus Christ to "have mercy upon me a sinner" in even presuming to invite any of you to view my little back yard in which God the Creator is silently working.

Peace!

marie_duquette

[John Charmley]

Dear Marie,

Thank you for a beautiful and tender posting.

He is our loving Heavenly Father, and we know that He can number the hairs on our heads, and that He cares enough for us that He sent His only-begotten Son to redeem us. Through His Church and His sacraments His Grace manifests itself to us, and we are called to follow Him and walk in His ways, so that all our works may be done in His name, so that the world may know whose disciples we are.

Through Him, our sins are forgiven; through His most precious body and His most precious blood, our souls and bodies are healed. Indeed, His yoke is easy, for the alternative is most assuredly not. His love surpasses our understanding, but though the Incarnate Word we know what is needful for our salvation.

He is at the heart of our salvation; through Him we shall be made whole - and be one with Him. As you so rightly remind us in your moving post, Marie, He is with us evermore - even unto the ages of ages.

In Christ,

John

[Owen Jones]

Just a small quibble, but the Holy Trinity surely incorporates both the personal and the non-personal. As God is all in all, if we are spiritually attentive, we will discover the Trinity in the rocks and trees, and not only in the things in nature, but in the processes of nature as well. Christian doctrine is that Christ came as a man because of our spiritual blindness and incapacity to see Christ (and the fullness of the Trinity) in the things that He has made. In theory, a flower is just as revelatory of Christ as is the person Jesus.

Also, while not a linguist, my understanding is that the classical meaning of persona is a face, or mask. In other words, a manifestation of something hidden. This is quite different from the immanentized and objectivized definition of person today. And what we have for the most part today is a virtual fixation, especially among our Protestant brethren, on the person of Jesus to the point that Christianity has been reduced to a Jesus cult. As more and more people seek a "personal relationship" with Jesus, religion becomes more and more focused on personal, individual gratification, coupled with money back guarantees.

Nor do I think one is forced to defend the Buddhist non-person in order to accept that our God incorporates both the personal and non-personal. Unfortunately, much of contemporary theological discussion seems to be reacting to something in the culture, rather than illuminative.

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear John,

Thank you for your kind words concerning my last post. As always you bring a healing balm to this thread, by the very expressions you employ to make a point. "A tenderness" perhaps, as the Icon of the Theotokos of Tenderness evokes.

"Blessed be Egypt, my People!" This morning as I took time to explore and found the beautiful images that you share concerning Coptic Orthodoxy, I wish to thank you for this.

On the Sunday, last I attended the pan-Orthodox Vesper Service at the local Coptic Church, which is struggling, and so beautiful in it people and its ardent love for the Theotokos and for Our Lord Jesus Christ; as well as warmly hospitable to the few who do attend in the Spirit of the Prayer of Christ Jesus: "That they be one, Father, as we are one!" This little Community seemingly lost amidst the increasingly complicated and bustling American city environment, is much like the radiantly lovely "lilies of the fields" (crocuses: that are blooming in my back yard: gloriously alive in Christ, while experiencing its huge share of the Cross at this time at the Heart of Salvation.

I do not need to become Coptic to be at the Heart of Salvation, but I am pressed on to be more truly Christian as I learn from Christ Jesus to be more humble and gentle of Heart," and to take up my cross daily, laying down my life joyfully for God's People, Egypt. In a sense we are all "Egypt!" in need of ransom, redemption, salvation, and a more deep immersion into the Christ-Life and Way!

marie_duquette

[Marie-Duquette]

Beginning to live as if that change had already occurred . . .




Dear Marie,

Thank you very much for the above post. What a beautiful picture you have painted. I actually am receiving your post and John's which followed as walking hand-in-hand in what is being said. However, I would like to respond to your's first. And, it sounds like there would be at least two of us taking you up on your offer for coffee in the backyard; however, considering the price of air fare for us and any others, I wonder if we could also have a cake :) And, then, thinking of another famous Marie, you may decide to "Let them eat cake." Okay, I know, don't quit my day job.

But, back to business. And, to move straight to the point, I do not want to be associated/labled in any way, shape, or form with what is known as the Emergent Movement or the Emergent Church. As I have been reading about these Emerging Christians over the past few years, I can see why they are considered to be the most controversial and misunderstood movement in the church today. But, being only familiar with the US movement and not the UK movement, I do not want to be associated with them. So, with this clearly stated (I hope), I would also like to say that I have noticed an almost eerie (for the lack of a more spiritual word at the present) resemblance in the thinking of this movement and my own in some areas over the past few years. I have academic papers that I have turned in for both graduate and post graduate programs over the past eight years that are dated and graded so that I can prove 'my' so called thinking, pre-dates published thoughts that were perfectly parallel (using the same words in some cases). However, saying all of that for any who might be familiar with this, I would like to share that just as the Emergent folks see that the church needs to change in some areas, their response is simply that they are beginning to live as if that change had already occurred.

Think about this with me please Marie in light of what you have proposed above on even its most basic level. This is the best definition of An American Orthodoxy[!] that has ever been proposed on this monachos site, and probably ever will be. Where is the division in what you have proposed? It is not there. It is non-existent. It has been transcended! Think about this. Now Orthodoxy is "a term that signals a way of being in the world!" What a novel concept as we look back to the early Church.

"A way of Being in the world."

Yes, as St. Isaac has said, "When we have reached Love, we have reached God, and our journey is complete."

An ontology of Love, a theology of Love, as a way of being in the world. I am very sorry for any who are offended by what is being said here, but frankly, if one cannot hear what is being said here, then one cannot hear anything at all as spoken from a spiritual plane such as from where St. Isaac stands. There is a beauty here, that even though it is served up so poorly by the likes of me, this beauty cannot not be seen by those with eyes to see, and the message that is going forth here today cannot not be heard by those with ears to hear. In this sense, this is such a plain thing. Such a 'simple' thing. Such a beautiful thing. How appropriate that this would come forth at this time of the year that we are in now.

There really is a resurrection that needs to take place in our day and time. And, this is referring to the Great Orthodox Catholic Tradition (GOCT) of which this way of being speaks. Yes, Orthodoxy involves "a means of believing things about the world," it has to. And, yes Orthodoxy is the opposite of heresy. But, how pathetic if this is all that it is. How miserable life is for the one who is 'limited' to this way of knowing and being. This is why these type of christians try to be so controlling/limiting of others, because they want everyone else to be just as miserable as they are. This mentality should be avoided like the plague. This mentality is antithetical to any propositions such as the above, and it only breeds/reproduces itself in the form of other stunted/immature Christians manifesting strife, jealousy, and division/dysfunction.

So, this is just an introduction to where I think we may be heading next in our present evolving discussion here in our electronic monachos assembly. But, thank you very much Marie for this picture that you have painted complete with sights, sounds, smells, and tastes . . . each time I picture you, John, me, and possibly even Learner around a table or all sitting on the same Ground amongst the crocuses just 'exactly' as you have described it Word-for-word:



I stop and smile as I see with my minds eye a beautiful picture of a GOCT lighting/pointing the 'way' to a Global Orthodox Christian Village (GOCV). And, ultimately, I can appreciate the words of the poet of this thread who shared several weeks ago the following:

Nowaday,
I simply sit,
and read,
and write,
with knowledge sweet
and deep
I know:
I smile,
and weep,
at my Lord's feet.

In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

Dear Rick,

Thank you! ... As you asked of me, I am considering both requests put to me: 1. cultivation of the Gifts ( from an earlier post); and 2. think about this with me, Marie ... ( from above)

I realise that yesterday we were both posting at the same time, so our posts overlapped somewhat! all is as it should be, thank God, for it is all His doing, Esther 10:4-13

marie_duquette

[Marie-Duquette]

Just a small quibble, but the Holy Trinity surely incorporates both the personal and the non-personal. As God is all in all, if we are spiritually attentive, we will discover the Trinity in the rocks and trees, and not only in the things in nature, but in the processes of nature as well. Christian doctrine is that Christ came as a man because of our spiritual blindness and incapacity to see Christ (and the fullness of the Trinity) in the things that He has made. In theory, a flower is just as revelatory of Christ as is the person Jesus.

Also, while not a linguist, my understanding is that the classical meaning of persona is a face, or mask. In other words, a manifestation of something hidden. This is quite different from the immanentized and objectivized definition of person today. And what we have for the most part today is a virtual fixation, especially among our Protestant brethren, on the person of Jesus to the point that Christianity has been reduced to a Jesus cult. As more and more people seek a "personal relationship" with Jesus, religion becomes more and more focused on personal, individual gratification, coupled with money back guarantees.

Nor do I think one is forced to defend the Buddhist non-person in order to accept that our God incorporates both the personal and non-personal. Unfortunately, much of contemporary theological discussion seems to be reacting to something in the culture, rather than illuminative.

Owen as usual, you clearly bring out points that certainly need to be considered, for both threads: American Orthodoxy and the Heart of Salvation: Persona, Person, non-person , all three relavant to these discussions. I will leave the sorting out to those more Theologically astute, while I ponder this in my heart.

Would that "contemporary theological discussion be more "ILLUMINATive" and not so "REACTIONARY to modern culture"! Perhaps the Theologian and the Pray-er both need take more time for solitary prayer and contemplation of the TRUTH!

Thank You!

marie_duquette

[Theophrastus]

Nor do I think one is forced to defend the Buddhist non-person in order to accept that our God incorporates both the personal and non-personal. Unfortunately, much of contemporary theological discussion seems to be reacting to something in the culture, rather than illuminative.

I would also like to point out that the Buddhism found within much of American culture exists as a Buddhism that does not necessarily contain the full range of faith and practice found in Asian Buddhism. Too many American Buddhists unnecessarily practice a version of Buddhism that simply serves as a 'reaction' against the Christianity or Judaism of the American Buddhist child- and adolescent-hood. Thus, the traits within Buddhism that exemplify the 'non-personal' or the 'rational' become valorized; and the Buddhist tradition's incorporation of the importance of faith, of 'personhood', or of the 'preter-rational', remain hidden, suppressed, or ignored. Darwin provided a reasonable path by which atheists could travel this bio-bountiful earth without invoking deity; likewise, current forms of American Buddhism provide a reasonable, rational path by which spiritually disillusioned Westerners can find sanctuary from perceived limitations within their own Abrahamic traditions. The phenomenon of an 'American-friendly Buddhism' arises due to the relatively recent introduction of Buddhist texts and teachers to America. One could predict that, over time, over decades and centuries, American Buddhism will (ideally) mature, as the relationships between the Dharmic traditions and the Abrahamic traditions becomes less 'reactionary' and more 'illuminative'.

[Father David Moser]

Just a small quibble, but the Holy Trinity surely incorporates both the personal and the non-personal. ...
Also, while not a linguist, my understanding is that the classical meaning of persona is a face, or mask.

However, iirc (and I'd have to research it all over again to provide the exact quotes), the concept of the Trinity as three "persona"s/masks is also heretical. The persons of the Holy Trinity are three distinct persons, not three "masks" of the same being.

I doubt this is what you are trying to say - however, it is also important to "tread carefully" here lest in avoiding one error, you fall into the opposite error.

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

Dear Marie,

Your words of kindness add to any balm here present; and I am so pleased that you like the images.

What you say about your local Copts is true in my experience; their adoration of the Most Holy Theotokos is straight from the heart, and their joy during parts of the Liturgy an inspiration.


In a sense we are all "Egypt!" in need of ransom, redemption, salvation, and a more deep immersion into the Christ-Life and Way!

How true that is - and how much posts such as your own, and those of so many others here, illuminate what is at the heart of salvation. When we reflect His love for us in kindness, we bear some small witness to whose disciples we are.

We have come far this Lent, and as we enter its final days, I should like to think that the discussions here on Monachos have helped us all with our Lenten disciplines.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

The Truth is the Truth


Just a small quibble, but the Holy Trinity surely incorporates both the personal and the non-personal. As God is all in all, if we are spiritually attentive, we will discover the Trinity in the rocks and trees, and not only in the things in nature, but in the processes of nature as well. Christian doctrine is that Christ came as a man because of our spiritual blindness and incapacity to see Christ (and the fullness of the Trinity) in the things that He has made. In theory, a flower is just as revelatory of Christ as is the person Jesus.

Also, while not a linguist, my understanding is that the classical meaning of persona is a face, or mask. In other words, a manifestation of something hidden. This is quite different from the immanentized and objectivized definition of person today. And what we have for the most part today is a virtual fixation, especially among our Protestant brethren, on the person of Jesus to the point that Christianity has been reduced to a Jesus cult. As more and more people seek a "personal relationship" with Jesus, religion becomes more and more focused on personal, individual gratification, coupled with money back guarantees.

Nor do I think one is forced to defend the Buddhist non-person in order to accept that our God incorporates both the personal and non-personal. Unfortunately, much of contemporary theological discussion seems to be reacting to something in the culture, rather than illuminative.

Dear Owen,

Just enough time today for a thank you note. Yes, as Marie has said, very good as usual:



As God is all in all, if we are spiritually attentive, we will discover the Trinity in the rocks and trees, and not only in the things in nature, but in the processes of nature as well.


Please consider contributing to the Contemplation of the Divine Logos thread. Maria and I are trying to learn what the Fathers are saying about such things as what you have said above, and we are down to the dreaded secondary sources now ;)



Unfortunately, much of contemporary theological discussion seems to be reacting to something in the culture, rather than illuminative.


Yes, as you say unfortunately.

There is (or was) a contemporary Christian band named "The Kry." One of their songs had the lyrics in it, "Where's the passion? . . . Where's the hey-hey?" There is a fine line and a ragged edge between the reactionary and the passionate, may we all (including me!) be always aware of the difference.

May we avoid as much as possible the life without passionate feeling [Leidenschaft]. As so many people attempt to live life without suffering [Leiden], but end up only experiencing the modern death called apathy, maybe we all can learn something, and profit from Jetavan and his high caliber contributions to this thread and the others. The Truth is the Truth.

In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Some interesting thoughts. A flower may, indeed, be as revelatory of Christ as the person Jesus, but there is the risk that that view is, itself, reflective of the very phenomenon which Owen deplores; it concentrates on the 'person Jesus'. In Owen's hands it may not, but the danger is there all the same.

Can I shift us towards the purpose of the Incarnation, which is at the heart of our salvation, and to an area in which a flower would be of a good deal less use?
In his Commentary of the Gospel of St. John 4:2, St. Cyril of Alexandria addresses the union of natures and the purpose of the Eucharist in words which we may wish to ponder here:


After the Incarnation [Christ’s humanity and the Word] are not divisible, except insofar as one knows that the Word that came from the Father and the temple that came from the Virgin are not identical in nature. For the body is not consubstantial with the Word that is from God. But they are one in their coming together and in the ineffable way in which they are combined. And if the flesh of the Saviour became life-giving, seeing that it was united with that which is Life by nature, i.e the Word that is from God, when we taste of it we have that life within ourselves, since we too are united with the flesh of the Saviour in the same way as that flesh is united with the Word that dwells within it.

That is also why when he raises the dead the Saviour is seen to be operating not by word alone, nor by commands such as befit God, but he firmly insisted on using his holy flesh as a kind of co-worker, that he might show it to be capable of giving life and already made one with him. For it really was his own body and not that of another. Thus when he raised the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, saying, ‘Child, arise’ (Luke. 8:54), he took her by the hand, as Scripture records. While giving life as God by his all-powerful command, he also gives life by the touch of his holy flesh, demonstrating through both that the operation was a single and cognate one. … If by the touch of his holy flesh he gives life to that which has decayed, how shall we not profit more richly from the life-giving Eucharist when we taste it? For it will certainly transform those who partake of it and endow them with its own proper good, that is, immortality.

As we continue our quest here, these words direct us towards what lies at the heart of our salvation - something at once intensely personal and infinite.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

The Heart of Salvation!

". . . freely, simply, spontaneously, from the depths of his heart, moved by love."


Dear Marie,

Thank you for remembering the question about the cultivation of gifts. And, thank you also for the recent statement, "Perhaps the Theologian and the Pray-er both need take more time for solitary prayer and contemplation of the TRUTH!" This has been something that has stayed with me since you wrote it and has been a helpful thing to me personally. To be honest with you I operate by high degree of intuition (possibly not unlike yourself?), and I hope to ultimately and characteristically be moved by Love and find my being in the same. But, this is not always the case, and as I have said, while I have a theology of hope that is in full agreement with what has been said by another:




The spiritual man is one who, 'whether he eats or drinks or whatever else he does, does all for the glory of God' (1 Cor 10:31). Again, this does not mean that he merely registers in his mind an abstract intention to glorify God. It means that in all his actions he is free from the superficial automatism of conventional routine. It means that in all that he does he acts freely, simply, spontaneously, from the depths of his heart, moved by love.



and while it seems the rule for many is a state of being that manifests itself in freedom, simplicity, spontaneous acts, as described above, there is not always the proper motivation. And, that is why I am making this feeble attempt to say thank you to you for being a willing tool in the hand of God for the benefit of all of us here and pointing to the Truth in Love. We all need timely reminders and guideposts from time to time as we journey along. And, possibly this even speaks to the subject of the cultivation of gifts as one may cultivate such things as flowers. But, all in due time.

Thanks again Marie for the words of wisdom.

In Christ,
Rick

Aletheuontes en Agape

[Rick H.]

Dear John and All,

Yes, if I am tracking with you and Owen here correctly, concerning the admonition of a christian monism or pentecostal oneness movement (Jesus only) approach, then I think it is as you say very well and even handedly:




A flower may, indeed, be as revelatory of Christ as the person Jesus, but there is the risk that that view is, itself, reflective of the very phenomenon which Owen deplores; it concentrates on the 'person Jesus'. In Owen's hands it may not, but the danger is there all the same.



but there *is* a grey area there or a risk as you say as it pertains to natural revelation (some of which is being dealt with now on the Contemplation of the Divine Logos thread). And, as you also follow this up with the following from St. Cyril:




… If by the touch of his holy flesh he gives life to that which has decayed, how shall we not profit more richly from the life-giving Eucharist when we taste it? For it will certainly transform those who partake of it and endow them with its own proper good, that is, immortality.



I am compelled to link these two thoughts as we consider such things as revelation, illumination, and 'vehicles' and sacraments.

And, as we consider what you have posed as being, "The purpose for the Incarnation," I think this could be pursued in a limitless amount of directions. However, reaching back to Father Raphael's most recent contributions on this thread, and pulling forward from this place I think it is possible that we are now possibly re-considering what should 'be dealt with squarely' and what should 'be transcended' as it relates to a true union/communion as opposed to an artificial unity/community. And, even here we are again right back to the place of Love aren't we? And, also here we are again right back to the place of asking such questions as Who/who or What/what determines this place?

As well as, Who are the qualified guides/shepherds, who the one's that we should look to for direction/care? I would think we would look to the ones who most consistently model Love and compassion and are genuinely moved to compassion in their inner parts just as we read Christ was both passively and passionately moved to compassion in his inner parts in the Holy Scriptures. Yes, we will have to begin a Bible study here one day in the near future and look at some of these passages in which we see the Chief Shepherd modeling and performing his function of feeding sheep from a place of Love for the sheep. The Bible speaks very clearly about the 'gazing' of Christ and the 'compassion' of Christ. The link here is very helpful. But, who are the guides and shepherds who are qualified to direct and teach? This is not a very hard question to answer is it? They are the ones who resemble the Chief Shepard and tend the flock as he has tended the flock. And, they are the ones who are feeding the sheep, just as Christ exhorted another to feed His sheep three times. So this is not a hard question to answer is it. We can recognize the under shepherds by their modeling of 'the way' of the Chief Shepard. And, we can naturally embrace and follow the shepherds who care for us and nurture us look out for us . . . just as we can turn from and reject a so called shepherd who characteristically neglects and abuses the sheep in his charge. Because, shepherds don't beat sheep! Do they? Sometimes, shepherds who are themselves in need of pastoral care will vent and use their position of authority as a personal outlet for their own personal disturbances. So we do see this in reality (and this is a very sad thing), but clearly shepherds don't beat sheep! They feed them and they care for them. So this is one way of identifying the good shepherd from the one who should not be given a staff.

And, to move from here to hopefully a place of greater understanding and discernment of such things as when a flower can be a distraction and when it can bring a symbolic realism and a cosmic liturgy into view that is a true sacrament, which can "transform those who partake in it," I would like to move to a comparison and contrast of the thinking of Nellas and Mantzaridis, who are shepherds with pens instead of staffs.

As we consider what can and cannot be called in the true sense "spiritual." As we also may consider what Owen has brought up as it relates to personhood in tandem with what actually constitutes a man (and for man to become that for which he was created to be). Hopefully, things will come in to view for some in this discussion that have only been fuzzy up to this point. As you say John, "the purpose for the incarnation," and as we consider the Orthodox view of personhood and the Trinity, and what actually constitutes a man we move into the deepest of waters where it is easy to lose our way. However, God willing, we will venture back out to these waters as we have before and our 'simple' bears of small brains and our indispensable contributors will surface once again to help with this endeavor for the good of all. And, on a side note, herein lies the true beauty of these men and women to me. The one's who perceive themselves as waders to the deep are the same ones that I perceive as surfacing from the deep at just the right times.

And, I think I am realizing now that we are not even going to get started here with Nellas ad Mantzaridis today; however, that is okay because (I think I can hear the Old Spice jingle playing in the background) and I can see the throttle pushed ahead to full-speed now, and we are well on our way now in this voyage. God willing, WE will determine what is and what is not in the true sense "spiritual" in OUR lives. Hopefully, at least some of US will anyway. Yes, once again here, as elsewhere, it is being as communion. Who determines this being and this communion? :) Possibly, we will find some answers in Nellas and Matzaridis. Lentil bean soup anyone? :)

In Christ,
Rick

Truth Leading Reason

[Rick H.]

Towards Transcending Long Held Lines of Division

Dear All,

I would like to do a comparison and a contrast of the thinking of two contemporary Greek theologians beginning with the first, Panayiotis Nellas in a passage from his book, Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person (Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir's Seminary Press, 1987), 115-16.

I am using too many colors and other forms of emphasis here, but I want to give the reader his or her best chance to lift out what they can in the shortest amount of time (before we move to the second author in the next post). And, in fact, as I think about this further, I have some friends who get annoyed when this is done too much, so I will place a second version below for any who would prefer to read through this without any colors or additional emphasis.

In the Crucified and Risen Lord,
Rick


"The life of man differs radically from the life of any other animal on earth. From his creation man, made in the image of God, possesses intellect and free will as his inalienable property and can thus create his own world, either a world common to the human race, namely civilized life, or a separate world which gifted individuals create internally for themselves. Life on this level may be "interior," as with the vision of an artist or a philosopher. It may even be called "spiritual," in the sense that it operates through the higher "non-material: functions of the human organism, namely the intellect, the emotions and the imagination. Such an "interior" or "spiritual" life, however, without being narrowly bodily is certainly biological, albeit with all the majesty and wealth which the Creator desired that even the biological limits of man should enclose within them. But, however much the psychic world of man is developed, it cannot while functioning "autonomously" attain to the reality of God and live with the life of the Spirit. Such a life has no connection with the Christian spiritual life.

But, on the other hand, since man has within him an ineradicable consciousness of his createdness, he also can create a world which takes the existence of God seriously, which is organized with laws and precepts in the sight of God. Life on this level is called "religious." Since, however, it is merely organized in the sight of God and is not yet united with Him, even this life cannot be called in the true sense "spiritual." The spiritual life is not a life of laws and precepts but a life of participation, affection and love, a life of mingling and mixing with God.

However high then, the degrees of "interior," "spiritual" or "religious" life may be to which a man has raised himself, he cannot yet be considered a truly spiritual person. St. Paul felicitously calls him "psychic" (1 cor 2:14). Looked at from the ontological point of view, this means that he is not yet a full and true man, and this is precisely because union with God is not some additional element but actually constitutes man. For a man to be a man he must become that which he was created to be."


***

"The life of man differs radically from the life of any other animal on earth. From his creation man, made in the image of God, possesses intellect and free will as his inalienable property and can thus create his own world, either a world common to the human race, namely civilized life, or a separate world which gifted individuals create internally for themselves. Life on this level may be "interior," as with the vision of an artist or a philosopher. It may even be called "spiritual," in the sense that it operates through the higher "non-material: functions of the human organism, namely the intellect, the emotions and the imagination. Such an "interior" or "spiritual" life, however, without being narrowly bodily is certainly biological, albeit with all the majesty and wealth which the Creator desired that even the biological limits of man should enclose within them. But, however much the psychic world of man is developed, it cannot while functioning autonomously attain to the reality of God and live with the life of the Spirit. Such a life has no connection with the Christian spiritual life.

But, on the other hand, since man has within him an ineradicable consciousness of his createdness, he also can create a world which takes the existence of God seriously, which is organized with laws and precepts in the sight of God. Life on this level is called "religious." Since, however, it is merely organized in the sight of God and is not yet united with Him, even this life cannot be called in the true sense "spiritual." The spiritual life is not a life of laws and precepts but a life of participation, affection and love, a life of mingling and mixing with God.

However high then, the degrees of "interior," "spiritual" or "religious" life may be to which a man has raised himself, he cannot yet be considered a truly spiritual person. St. Paul felicitously calls him "psychic" (1 cor 2:14). Looked at from the ontological point of view, this means that he is not yet a full and true man, and this is precisely because union with God is not some additional element but actually constitutes man. For a man to be a man he must become that which he was created to be."

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Here is part II of the two part comparison and contrast of Nellas and Mantzaridis. It is a short three paragraph piece. I would like to simply post this today with no real work being done, and then with both in place pick back up with this tomorrow or Monday, God willing. This passage is from a book by Georgios Mantzaridis titled, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984), 113-14. In this work we read:

"Every intelligent human being can come to recognize the Creator through creation. To deny the existence of God is not merely an error in reasoning on man's part, but evidence of delusion and derangement. Nevertheless, the way of natural revelation does not bring man into personal contact or communion with God. But only to the bare recognition of His existence. This recognition, however, is seen by Palamas to be so obvious that it may be defined as an inference from rational evidence.

But knowledge of God acquired in this natural way is purile and preliminary, for God is not being approached as a living being, but as an impersonal, transcendent power by which the world is governed and directed.

Direct and personal knowledge of God is achieved through a mystical communion with Him. Man gains true knowledge of Him once he is visited by deifying grace and united through it with God. The more man accepts the divinizing transformation worked within him by the Holy Spirit, the more perfect and full is his knowledge of God."

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Part III


Dear All,

It appears that there is a part three to this most recent discussion. I would like to add the following by Owen Jones (especially as it relates to the 'on and off switch' vs. the 'reostat'), for our consideration, in addition to the first two authors:

Thank you,
Rick





17-10-2006, 07:44 AM
Owen Jones (Seraphim)
Username: Owen Jones
Very Frequent Poster
Member Images: (0) Join Date: Apr 2002

We Orthodox should be jealous of the fervency of our Protestant friends -- but it also should be stated that Orthodox fervency is represented in a different way. In Protestantism, fervency and commitment to Christ is typically represented through acts of the will. In Orthodoxy it is, in a certain sense, just the opposite. We crucify the will through simple virtues of humility, self-denial, often in little things, like not speaking out when silence is better and so on. The difference is that these virtues are intrinsic to the transformation of the mind, body and soul, whereas in Protestantism, virtue is seen as a kind of add-on to salvation, which is seen as a confirmation of the will. In Orthodoxy, salvation does not have an on-off switch. It's more as if the soul makes progress from darkness into light, as if it were controlled by a reostat, not an on-off switch. Protestants typically confuse this with "works righteousness" which is a serious misinterpretation of the true path to Christ. And so the Protestant looks for some absolute sign of salvation in the form of a personal act of faith commitment. Paradoxically, the Protestant insistence on a guarantee of salvation leads to the psycho-therapist, because how does one really know he is saved? The Orthodox person who is truly practicing his faith because he does not create for himself a false goal of absolute knowledge; rather he practices his faith as an ongoing inner revolution of the soul and is confident that the Church provides the proper means. This is what Orthodoxy means: right praise or right worship. It is not simply a matter of right worship in the formalistic sense, but worshipping in and through the right attitude toward creation -- and meditating on the things that God has made so that they can be seen in their true nature, and we become one with that true nature. Which is why Orthodox worship is so physical in nature. It is a physical representation of the Kingdom which we can taste and see. Thereby, we enter into the Kingdom now. We do not have to wait until we die. And when we abandon all thoughts of self the result is an ecstatic union with God, not just Christ, but God as Holy Trinity, in which our minds, our souls, our bodies, find all that they require for true joy and happiness.

[Rick H.]

I-You: "Each as IS Appropriate for Oneself"

Dear Fellow Monachoi,

It occurs to me that the Buber post of last week in the 'Not I, But Christ' thread (in direct response to other 'I and Thou--Subject/Object' references) was somewhat unfair, because as a stand alone thought unit, it really is incomprehensible. So, I have decided to try to make amends in a way, and set the table and pour the drinks once more, and include the next installment in Buber's thinking here. I would also like to pass on the previously proposed conversation for now, and move forward with this here in the 'Heart of Salvation!' thread because it really does belong here--all things considered. The contributors to this thread have proven to be characteristically predisposed to this way of knowing more than not, and even though the cookies are not on the bottom shelf any longer, there is a nice pot of forced bulbs (crocuses I think) sitting in the middle of the table near the plates, and forks and knives.

Possibly, it is helpful also to know that Buber's paragraphs really are well defined thought units, and they tend to build on top of each other in a very unique way. However, (and this is important) *unlike* "a house of cards," whereby if something on the lower level is disturbed, or even breathed upon too hard, it can bring the whole house down in short order . . . Buber's work can be taken apart piece by piece and examined (dokimaso!) without causing any stress or grief to the structure as a whole. There is no need for a hard hat here on this site! Feel free to light it up, take it apart, question IT! . . . please do feel free to put it under the microscope or stand way back and look at it from a distance--you don't have to worry about this one coming down.

And, in fact there are great rewards for the one who would approach this with either an engineering mind or a more *simple* mind. Actually, I am fully persuaded that to wade into what is being said with a *simple* mind will yield the most satisfactory results in the shortest time--but ultimately it is "each as is appropriate for oneself"--right?/! Again I will mention that I am presenting this just as it was written, with sometimes very short paragraphs found within the thought unit or paragraph itself, just as Buber has written it. And, one last disclaimer here; as I said in the 'Not I, but Christ' thread, for any who might have paid any attention to my use of pronounds in the past here on monachos.net, please do not confuse my babbling with Buber's genius (viz. keep the two presentations apart to avoid confusion) So, 'beginning' with a review of the first thought unit, and then adding on the second new installment, here we go again ;)



***

"The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.

The attitude of man is twofold in accordance with the two basic words he can speak.

The basic words are not single words but word pairs.

One basic word is the word pair I-You.

The other basic word is the word pair I-It; but this basic word is not changed when He or She takes the place of It.

Thus the I of man is also twofold.

For the I of the basic word I-You is different from that in the basic word I-It"


***



Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them; but by being spoken they establish a mode of existence.

Basic words are spoken with one's being.

When one says You, the I of the word-pair I -You is said, too.

When one says It, the I of the word pair I-It is said, too.

The basic word I-You can only be spoken with one's whole being.

The basic word I-It can never be spoken with one's whole being.




***
In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Don't Let This Happen to You

Dear All,


<<<<<<<HELLO>>>>>>>

This M. Buber discussion seems to have some things in common with the LZ 129 Hindenburg.

But, I have been told there are blessings for those who persevere, and that sometimes we get the right answers by pushing the wrong buttons. So, it is a lonely work that we fans of Buber are involved in. But, it is a good work, and it is an honest way to make a living, right? So, we will stay the course! . . . a thousand points of light! (and all that ;) with another addition in the blue quote box at the end of the post. This should start to make a little more sense now or soon.

I actually hated this book when I first got it. I picked it up and threw it down as rubbish quite a few times until one day I was trapped in an airplane for several hours. I had this book in my laptop bag that day, for some reason, and I had my highlighters/markers with me. So, long story short, I became one with this book, that day and even though that was an example of the I-It . . . that was what it took to get it. But, be careful, because I will warn you that it is both a contagious thing and habit forming thing (as evidenced by this present effort). And, now it also occurs to me that if anyone here contracts this, it will have been from me :) So, if this does in fact occur, I will apologize ahead of time for the day when you find yourself babbling to another about Martin Buber's, I and Thou.


***


"The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.

The attitude of man is twofold in accordance with the two basic words he can speak.

The basic words are not single words but word pairs.

One basic word is the word pair I-You.

The other basic word is the word pair I-It; but this basic word is not changed when He or She takes the place of It.

Thus the I of man is also twofold.

For the I of the basic word I-You is different from that in the basic word I-It"



***


Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them; but by being spoken they establish a mode of existence.

Basic words are spoken with one's being.

When one says You, the I of the word-pair I -You is said, too.

When one says It, the I of the word pair I-It is said, too.

The basic word I-You can only be spoken with one's whole being.

The basic word I-It can never be spoken with one's whole being.



***



There is no I as such but only the I of the basic word I-You and the I of the basic word I-It

When a man says I, he means one or the other. The I he means is present when he says I. And when he says You or It, the I of one or the other basic word is also present.

Being I and saying I are the same. Saying I and saying one of the two basic words are the same.

Whoever speaks one of the basic words enters into the word and stands in it.




***

In Christ,
Rick

[Lourens]

Dear Mr. Henry,

Thank you for giving me an introduction to Buber’s work.

You have challenged me to run with it, but I suspect that my attempt would find a better audience in the kiddies’ playground---that is, if you spare me the dunce’s hat and some quiet time in the corner---than in the hallowed halls that house your classroom.

I rely on writing spontaneously, so what I will attempt here might best be labeled “just kidding,” and thus risk being sent outside to go and play.

Let’s see:

Buber says that man’s two-fold “world” corresponds with his two-fold “attitude,” which can only be expressed in the basic word pairs, I-You, and I-It.

Man’s two-fold attitude reveals to a two-fold I, for the one I is different from the other.

Dare I?

Let’s see:

Man’s two-fold “attitude” is expressed in the two basic expressions: I-Two, and I-Eat.

There is a two-fold I (for one is different from the other), remember?

Thus, I=Two.

I am Me; I am You= I am Two.
(I am tu=je suis tu, or more formally, I am Vouz=You)

This gets real crazy:

I am One (1); yet I=Two. One is Two, yet One:

“When one (1) says You (Two,tu), the I (one) of the word-pair I -You is said, too (not 2) (thus I am You).”

[Please note:(D)Ich bin DU: I=DU ---Du(o)=Two; also, DU=Deo-Theo-THOU]

“Whoever speaks one of the basic words enters into the word and stands in it.”

So, whoever speaks I-You enters into the WORD (I AM) and stands in it—


“…(The WORD= I AM ) our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” Rom 5:2

“The basic word I-You can only be spoken with one's whole being.”

One’s whole being (1 complete AM) is required to speak the basic WORD: I am TU. I am Me; I am You.


Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with (One’s whole being) all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (I am Tu).
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.“
Mat 22:37 - 40

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
On these two words hang the entire revelation divine.
In these two words are the WORD.

“Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them; but by being spoken they establish a mode of existence.

“Abide in Me; and I abide in thee; that WE ARE (BEING) ONE---ONE BEING.”

“Being I and saying I are the same. Saying I and saying one of the two basic words are the same.”

Now, for It.

“The basic word I-It can never be spoken with one's whole being.”

The basic word I-Eat can never be expressed (spoken) with one’s whole being.

First, one should not speak with a mouth that is eating.

Second, “When one says It, the I of the word pair I-It is said, too” means that One is what you Eat. (One= Eat; I-It)

Third, it is because man cannot live from bread alone, but from every WORD that comes from the mouth of God, that it is said, “I-Eat can never be spoken with one’s whole being."

I think you will need another flight for this one, Rick, a long one, with an eraser, rather than markers.

“Whoever speaks one of the basic words enters into the word and stands in it.”
“The basic word I-It can never be spoken with one's whole being.”

When it comes to the expression (word) I-It, It may never be spoken with one’s whole being (One I Am); entered into fully, and stand in It---for:


I am the LORD thy God …Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing …
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…
Deu 5:6 -9


“Show me IT (the tribute money). And they brought unto him IT (a penny).
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription (on IT)?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mat 22:19 21


No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and IT (mammon). Mat 6:24
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Mat 6:21


“There is no I as such but only the I of the basic word I-You and the I of the basic word I-It”
“ When a man says I, he means one or the other. The I he means is present when he says I. And when he says You or It, the I of one or the other basic word is also present.”

In the end, the EYE of the beholder identifies more fully, enters in more fully, stands more complete, in one or the other basic word, basic (self-) expression.


The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! Mat 6:22 -23

But, now, which eye?

Remember, man’s two-fold attitude reveals to a two-fold EYE (I), for the one EYE (I) is different from the other.

“For the I (eye) of the basic word (I)EYE-You is different from that in the basic word (I)EYE-It"


And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mat 5:29

Then there is the matter of attitude:


And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye (I), but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye (I)?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye (I); and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye (I)?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye (I); and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye (I). Mat 7:3-5

Talk about attitude!

It’s two-fold by nature, says Mr. Buber.

We have in common language also distinguished two: First, there’s the “bad attitude” (BA) that is as unpleasant as BO, and is known as “an evil eye”---God hates it!

Secondly, there is a “good attitude,’ that will have you score points beyond your merit.

It is my wish then, that my intended “good attitude” with this post will be eyed, rather than its merit, or sense. It is also my hope that Mr. Henry’s travel with Fantasy Flights is a pleasant one, that the coffee is good, and that the neighbor has some good stories to tell.

Respectfully,

Learner

[Rick H.]

Dear Learner,

Your intended 'good attitude' is most easily held in view and felt from beginning to end in your last post. Thank 'you' very much for playing 'your' part. Yes, my trip with Fantasy Flights :) . . . very good. And, I see that you have moved in the same direction (Judeo-Christian) with Buber's writing here that I have. How can one not? Obviously, there is a huge Hebraic expression, and flavor here. And, also upon even a superficial glance at Buber we can sense his involvement with Hasidic Mysticism--specifically he was involved with a revival of Hasidism. But, "laying all this aside," how can one not be swept away by the implications of what is being said in regards to both a personal relationship with the person of Jesus Christ, and the worship of the God of Abraham and Isaac, Yahweh/ the I AM. I appreciate it very much that you have moved directly to the mystical vine and branch reference in John 15 and in the surrounding chapters to reference the abiding life in Christ. As we consider what is being said here by our Lord, which is and has been tattooed on my mind for as long as I can remember, if not longer; and as we consider other such passages in the scripture that speak of a relational ontology just as Buber does here (and as Zizioulas does elsewhere--who I would like to do an essay comparing the great similarity of his thinking to Bubers), it is so easy to forget that this work was not written by a professing Christian author, but by a German Jew.

Knowing I lay myself open for attack here by expressing this sentiment; but, I will confess that when I first started reading Buber (after my first successful fantasy flight), I felt the need to constantly remind myself as I turned each page, something like, "Warning! This literature is not Christian literature." Or, something like this. I'm not entirely sure what I was afraid of. But, the point is now, I don't after becoming more familiar with what is being said, I don't feel this same need to be so "fearful." I will confess that I do still run under the yellow flag much of the time, but even in this state of caution of sorts, there is much room to reap the fruits of what is being said from the Hebraic place and this mystical place. There are times when being fear driven just completely blinds one to all possibilities and creative powers, and completely negates a possible recognition of anything remotely resembling new possibilities, as the emerge; whereby allowing no room for any to stand at the beginning, or to spy a Common Ground anywhere. And, now, after having just realized that I am slipping into Moltmann speak, I am thinking of something that Father Raphael has said in this thread several weeks back as it relates to what is going on here in this thread right now. I think there are and have been other conversations here at monachos.net 'about' such things as western literature and thinking in relation to The Holy Orthodox Church and the Treasury of which it is a keeper/minder. But, I don't think, or in other words, "Something tells me," there has never been a Living example of this very thing abiding here that offers the opportunity to be eyed for what it is and to simply be experienced, (or knowing how Buber feels about experience of God, possibly it would be more appropriate at the present to say . . . be eyed for what it is and allow for one to 'participate' in).

But, back to what comes to mind with my reference to Father Raphael. I will provide a couple of preliminary paragraphs to show the actually context of what was being said as it relates to a personal spiritual practice. But, look at where he goes with this and how he leaves off as it relates to "the question that we keep coming back to with no clear answer." I really think "this question" is very appropriate even now, possibly more so than in the previous discussion in which it was contributed when he says:




For example I have known Orthodox Christians who do yoga but not as part of any spirituality that would contradict the Faith. My first spiritual father who is an Orthodox hieromonk also, at least when I was with him, did yoga from time to time. One thing he said was that he thought the chakras corresponded to real energy centres within us. But following the advice of the Holy Frs we must be very careful about not concentrating on the energy centre found below the heart when doing the Jesus Prayer.

Which is to say that the practices of other non-western cultures may contain real insights about the reality of the human being as a psycho-somatic creature. But central to Orthodoxy is how we relate to this temple of the Holy Spirit.

I agree though that this question is very important to all of us. It comes up every time we pick up a book, listen to music or look at art which isn't purely from within the Church. It also comes up when we watch a movie or participate in anything to do with the modern media or contemporary methods of communication.

We have talked about this from time to time here at Monachos. Most seem to feel there is a real place for such things in their lives. But whether from a realistic acceptance of our own weakness or that these things really help us in our deeper spiritual lives is the question we keep coming back to with no clear answer.



I especially appreciate the above statement in Buber speak when Father says Central to Orthodoxy is how 'we-relate' to this temple of the Holy Spirit. But, I guess what I am saying now is that for *me* this work by Buber provides a crystal clear answer to the question. And, he is correct isn't he? When he says, "It [this question] comes up every time we pick up a book, listen to music or look at art which isn't purely from within the Church." So, there is even a question behind the question here in this new direction that the Heart of Salvation thread has taken of late, but more than enough said here. Or, maybe not :) Learner, I am afraid I am cursed as well with the spontaneous/intuitive style of writing as more of a rule than the exception. And, for that matter Buber was all about this in his work. In fact, and I hope this doesn't' make you pull your hair out when I tell you this, but some of what Buber has written he doesn't even understand. He has shared that when he would go back over his manuscript to edit and look for grammatical errors sometimes, he would have to admit that he didn't quite understand what was being said at times; but, he felt so strongly that we was working under a type of inspiration that he did not want to change these few areas. For example, and I noticed this on my first run through, after making the distinction between the I-It and the I-You (with the I-It speaking more to what happens with some when there is the contemplation of a tree or in this sense nature), he then moves on about halfway through the book to show how when sitting with a tree there can be a 'response' back from the tree . But, when read in its entirety you see an apparent contradiction in this one piece, and while not a fatal flaw by any means, this is what he was talking about. But, on a side note, as I have just learned recently about the [I]Logos/logoi concept of the Church Fathers, this is CLEARLY NOT a contradiction but is explained in a very detailed way (especially for those who love the minutia) by the Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If my writing here seems any more unfocused/confused or rushed than normal, that's because I am watching the clock right now. Just because I stay signed on to monachos most of the time when I am awake, and spend most of the day thinking about the topics of discussion on monachos, as well as the evening, and go to bed thinking about what I will post the next morning, and then dream about posting on monachos, and then wake up early in the morning to make coffee and start typing my posts . . . my silly family thinks I have some sort of internet addiction. These silly gooses hid my computer today, doing something called an intervention, and made me promise to abide by certain rules whereby I am not allowed to spend so much time reading and writing here. So, somewhat because I wanted my laptop back, I have decided to humor them and agree to there 'experiment' whereby I will simply show them that there is no problem . . . SOMEBODY HELP ME!!! ;) But, seriously, it appears that I will not get to interact with your last most excellent post now Learner which was very good in my opinion knowing you only have a few paragraphs from the first page and a half of Buber's book to work with, really very impressive! But, this is okay, I get more time later tonight, and I am looking forward to fixing a nice cup of masala chai, and moving to the smoking section of the plane and enjoying your last post in a more fitting way.

And, one last more general thing comes to mind that I would like to babble about before the timer goes off. But, first, to the person who asked me to be their accountability partner yesterday for not spending too much time online, I would like to say thanks for jinxing me! ;) And, come to think of it I got another PM from someone who talked about "normal people who get on with their lives and not hover around web forums," I am not so sure you weren't involved somehow with this hex that has been put on me today too. :) But, anywan, this one last thing speaks to the issue of language. I realize that the words that are being spoken here are not able to be understood any more than some of the technical/academic jargon that was used in the previous American Orthodoxy thread. So, even though the words that Buber uses, as well as the words that you have just used, Learner, are not technical or academic there is still a division of sorts taking place that does divide us into the Us and Them. But, ultimately jargon can have a postive or a negative effect . . . and, I specifically think now of the words of another who has said:




Men love jargon. It is so palpable, tangible, visible, audible; it makes so obvious what one has learned; it satisfies the craving for results. It is impressive for the uninitiated. It makes one feel that one belongs.



and while jargon (both technical and non-technical) does separate at times, it can also be a 'vehicle' to both take one to a place and manifest 'a common spirit' in a very practical way regardless of the labels that one wears or doesn't wear. But, for the times when the separation just cannot be helped, there is the reminder from our head shed here that one is under no obligation to participate, but being the dreamer of a concrete utopia (as opposed to an abstract utopia) that I am, I still hope that all will take a seat at the table that has been spread and taste and see . . .

DING!

Times up. Sorry again that I didn't interact with your post here, but thanks (again) Learner. God bless you.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Not real happy with this post of mine here but it is what it is.

[Rick H.]

Dear Learner, and All:

All things considered, especially the fact that we are still in the very beginning stages here with this, I think I would like to *simply* add the next thought unit, place the next building block in place today as it relates to our most recent discussion. So far we have made three installments, or have built up three levels, so to speak. And, this one makes #4. So, for everyone who is completely fascinated by this discussion (which as far as I can tell is either one or two of us), please add the following to your list that you may cut and past from the previous post:


***



The life of a human being does not exist merely in the sphere of goal-directed verbs. It does not consist merely of activities that have something for their object.

I perceive something. I feel something. I imagine something. I want something I sense something. I think something. The life of a human being does not consist merely of all this and its like.

All this and its like is the basis of the realm of It.

But the realm of You has another basis



***


Oh, what the heck! Let's get "wild and crazy" here just like Steve Martin used to do on a Saturday Night. Let's shoot the works, and throw caution to the wind, and all that :) . . . and go for #5:



***



Whoever says You does not have something for his object. For wherever there is something there is also another something; every It borders on other Its; It is only by virtue of bordering on others. But where You is said there is no something. You has no borders.

Whoever says You does not have something; he has nothing. But stands in relation.



***

Now, you can gloat away on this last sentence Learner! :) And, for any who may be reading this who are also following the "Church and it's limits and boundaries" thread, there may be special meaning for you in the above statement, "every It borders on other Its; It is only by virtue of bordering on others."

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Reserved for the initiated?

Dear All,

It has come to my attention (does anyone else feel guilty about using the 'who's on-line area?') :) . . . as I was saying, I have become aware that there are some 'closet' Buber fans here, who are actually reading this, so I will give it another round or two. If any 'come out' as Learner has so boldly stepped up, and hit a solid double, I think, with next to nothing to work with, then we can keep going. Otherwise, we will consider this Intro to Buber 101 to be coming to a close. Actually, I need to check into what is considered 'fair use' for something like this short book. For that matter, possibly, as it relates to Orthodoxy, and the recent references to this way of knowing in other threads, we have covered the ground that intersects with what has been mentioned.

Or, I tell you what, I'll provide the rest now, because I have a five day trip coming up, and this might be it for awhile. Would you believe it? I dropped my laptop that has accompanied me through many journeys in the past and broke the screen. I have found that it will cost $400.00 to have a new screen put in, so this means I do not have a laptop anymore. Not too happy about that. And, I can't help but notice the timing of the whole thing in light of recent developments at the home front. I have what's left of my laptop with my broken Internet card, all taped up with duct tape , and hooked up to an ancient 17" monitor, pulled from the garage that weighs just under 400lbs now. So, I don't think I will be taking this set-up with me.

However, again with an eye to the future, for those of us who do not have German as our first language, this is a book that you can usually find for $1.00 used plus about $3.00 shipping at places like Abe.com (I just checked and they have a copy there now for $1.00 a Scribner volume) I am using a paperback copy, translated by W. Kaufmann--"I and Thou: A New translation with a Prologue--I and You--and Notes," (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996). ISBN #0-684-71724-5 (trade paper). You can get this same text anyway from a place like CBD.com for $9.99 I and Thou - By: Martin Buber - Christianbook.com (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=17255&netp_id=171583&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW) Just tell them Rick sent you :) . . . or on second thought that would probably cause you to pay double or to have the phone slammed down on you. So knowing," I'll be playing at the Holiday Inn until Thursday", when the real talent comes into town, [and that I should not quit my day job ;) and without further fanfare here is potentially the last (But, definitely *not* the least!!!) of the great Buber conversation of '07:

#6

***

We are told that man experiences his world. What does this mean?

Man goes over the surfaces of things and experiences them. He brings back from them some knowledge of their condition--an experience. He experiences what there is to things.

But it is not experiences alone that bring the world to man.

For what they bring to him is only a world that consists of It and It and It, of He and He and She and She and It.

I experience something.

All this is not changed by adding "inner" experiences to the "external" ones, in line with the non-external distinction that is born of mankind's craving to take the edge off the mystery of death. Inner things like external things, things among things!

I experience something.

And all this is not changed by adding "mysterious" experiences to "manifest" ones, self-confident in the wisdom that recognizes a secret compartment in things, reserved for the initiated, and holds the key. O mysteriousness without mystery. O piling up of information! It, it, it!

***

#7 & #8

***

Those who experience do not participate . . .

The world as experience belongs to the basic word I-It.

The basic word I-You establishes the world of relation.

In Christ,
Rick

http://www.philosophypages.com/vy/bube.jpg

[Rick H.]

Having trouble with photo in this post post, should be resolved in five minutes.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

It looks like I have time for 'just one more' post today, 'but then I really gotta go'.

***NOTE: There is a photo that I hope will appear at the end of this post (me in my new outfit that I will wear on my upcoming trip to England), but if it does not appear here, I have just included it in my personal profile as my personal photo.

Soon, I would like to attempt to move back to a ground in this thread that was moved across by one or two individuals in the past as it relates to "a personal spiritual practice." Primarily, due to a prompting while reading Celinda's post in the Contemplation of the Divine Logos thread earlier, I would like to try again to spur conversation in this area.

But, first, and partially due to the very heady nature of the most recent contributions to this thread, I would like to hopefully find a place of transition, by means of sharing a story as it relates to a kind of good ol' boy 'symphonia,' whereby a genuine consensus *is* formed by those local experts who are known for gathering/assembling and just hanging around the Coke machines in my home town. Specifically, I am speaking of the one group down at the bait shop. They think their Coke machine is superior to all others (and they have reasons why, but that for another time).

Specifically, my story relates to when I was down there at the bait shop last week. I came out the front door with my usual order of two dozen night crawlers for whatever fish will take one, and a jar of power bait for the trout at Hueston Woods Lake, just minding my own business as usual, when Herbert, the *simple* one in the crowd said, "Hey Rick, you know what?" To which I allowed the customary amount of time to pass, before giving the proper response, "No (pause again) what?" This allowed Herbert to move forward, and he said, "How'd you like to join us for a Coke?" I said, thanks very much, and honestly felt honored as I accepted and tried to straighten out my dollar bill to feed it into the machine. After, retrieving my pop, soda, or soda-pop [depending on how you say it in your neck of the woods] I started to share with these men about how I had found this really cool website called monachos.net. And, I explained that this has been a really good thing, and that I have had the opportunity to interact with some people from around the country, and all over the world. I told them I have been talking with some new friends especially in England lately, and this has caused me to want to visit England for the first time. But, I confessed that I would not know the first thing about where to go or how to act.

This was when "M.C. Hammer" piped up. His real name wasn't M.C. Hammer, but this is his nickname because it seems like his pants are always hanging very low and are very baggy, so it kind of evolved from folks talking about his M.C. Hammer pants to just calling him M.C. Hammer. But, as I learned from M.C. that day, what is more important than where one goes or how one acts when in England, is how one dresses.

I told these guys that I have found out that bow-ties are a cool thing to where in England. And, they all laughed very hard at this. In fact, Leander "the learned one" said, oh no man, Rick, that is so old school, almost nobody wears bow ties in England anymore . . . and then the argument was on from there!!! And, the Coke machine gang swung into action doing what they do best . . . bringing about a consensus (usually whereby the majority rules). As I became silent and attempted to take in what was being said, [since I didn't really feel like a true regular here at this particular Coke machine] I heard one man say, "Bow ties, Schmow ties" What the English like to wear are hats! Another man chimed in saying, yes he is correct! I know this for a fact, the English are really big on wearing these bowling hats. They think these bowling hats really help them to knock down more pins when they are bowling for some reason, maybe because they are shaped like a bowling ball with a brim. But, and then turning to me with a very serious look on his face, and lowering the pitch of his voice he said, "Rick, if you are going over there, you must have one of these bowling hats!" And, then it was agreed that this was true by the group, and the traditional chorus of things like "I heard that" . . . "that ain't no lie" . . . and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" was chanted and we moved on.

Next, Tom, the scrapper of the group, hopped up off his folding chair and said, "Rick, I may not know much, but one thing I do know is those Englanders really like the color green and the are plum crazy about clovers!" To which, Connnie, the corrector, and righter of all wrongs of the group explained, "Actually, Andy, the English are crazy about shamrocks and not clovers, and it is especially the four leafed shamrocks that they are so fond of." He continued, "If one cannot find the four leaf shamrock then the three leaf will suffice and no offense will be taken." Andy, replied, "What does suffice mean Connine?" Connie said that he would tell him later at the diner, but then he turned to me and said, "So Rick, if at all possible try to get one of those bowling hats with a four leaf shamrock on it, that will really impress them." And, again the chorus of affirmations were chanted making this the consensus of our particular group as well.

Finally, and much to everyone's surprise, Amos contributed to the group. He almost never, contributes, and when he does, he always leaves for some reason, after he says his piece. We all love Amos and respect him, but we are curious to know why he always leaves when he does. But, as Amos starting speaking the parking lot grew very quite, as we all listened to him explain, "Rick, one thing . . . more than any other thing that you need when you are over there to compliment your outfit is one of those Winston Churchill Pipes." Amos, explained, Churchill was known for smoking very long stemmed pipes with large meerschaum bowls during World War II. So they named these pipes after Churchill. And, you must get one of these Churchill style pipes if you really want to be considered 'in.'" To which I replied, "Are you sure about that Amos, I thought Churchill smoked cigars?" I continued, "Actually, I think they named a large cigar after him." But, it was too late, Amos had already done gone. But, Herman, Ahem . . . I mean Herbert, or Herbie as we called him stood up for me and said, "you know guys, I don't really want to have to go against Amos, but I must admit, that I think Rick is right-- I think Churchill smoked big cigars not long stemmed pipes."

And, then the great Churchill cigar/pipe debate of '07 was off and running . . . Andy, said "I think Churchill smoked long stemmed pipes too, I think Amos is right." To which Connie interjected, "Actually, the long stemmed pipe that we are talking about does exist, but, it is not called a Churchill but it is called a Churchwarden." And, this really ticked off Betty who was sitting in her car waiting for her son to come out of the store, when she replied, " You knuckle heads don't know nothin, because, I have seen more pictures of Churchill than I can count, and in every picture that I have seen, he is smoking a large corn cob pipe!" Andy, said that was McArthur not Churchill . . . but it was consensus time because everyone had had their say. And, in the end, it was decided (partially becuase a Missouri meerschaum is a corn cob pipe) that Churchill definitely smoked a long stemmed pipe which was called a Churchill; BUT, that sometimes he smoked a meerschaum pipe and other times a corn cob pipe, and that either one would be both acceptable and appropriate for me to smoke as I walk the streets of London.

And, it was starting to get dark by this time, so it was time to leave, but before I left I asked one more time about such things as bow-ties and plaid sweaters, or maybe something not quite so showy. And, I was once again, informed that I would be better off to wear no tie, or a regular neck tie on my trip if I really wanted to fit in the most and to show the most respect to the English on my visit.

So, I went out last weekend and was able to find one of those bowling hat's with a shamrock on it (green if you can believe it), but not four leaf. And, I was able to also find one of those Churchill pipes too. So based on the consensus of this particular Coke machine group, when I come to visit England I will be able to fit in just fine with my new outfit.

Thanks for any input, ahead of time, that my international friends may be able to supply on this matter.

Betach,
Rick

http://www.monachos.net/forum/image.php?u=7637&dateline=1180452563&type=profile

[Rick H.]

A Philosophy of Christian Living: "From the Genitive to the Instrumental"





I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Are you asking about methods or essence? I would say that there is more then one method. The question is what is the essence, the irreducible that we cannot get rid of. Repentance, love, obedience, surrender, struggle faith in Christ have all been mentioned are there others?




Dear Celinda,

Yes, I was asking about "methods"/techniques, as well as "essence", as you say, as it relates to what I might refer to as 'our part' OF what is referred to, by some, as synergia or cooperation.

I will try to develop [and frame] my question(s) a little better here today, beginning with the latter aspect of essence, or 'our part' . . .

And, right here, at the starting line, is where the whole thing can just really blow up if we take the RPM's too high, too fast . . . when one attempts to move forward in this very necessary area with a conversation such as this. I love your reference to Oswald Chambers in the other thread, I can read him all day long. In fact, my birthday is September 13th, and OC writing on surrender on this day, in his classic work, speaks directly to me on this situation, and is a true gift from above as I perceive it.

And, I share your views that you have expressed in the past about a classic Reformed position. Namely, in this case, as it is stated in this model, whereby, one cannot paddle one's own canoe in the beginning of the 'process' up unto a place of 'salvation' in terms of a moment of decision, or an hour of decision in a classic revivalist/evangelical conversionism--or in terms of any beginning point as they see it; but, after 'this' point when the process of 'sanctification' begins, as it is viewed in this continuing model (or part II if you will), then one must paddle one's own canoe (like mad) if one has any hope of maintaining what has been given/initiated by grace alone, Sola Gracia! And, this is just one model to be found here, but the point is how absurd this is! I would not want to have to defend this position at all. And, I don't want to get us off on a tangent here with the Reformers any more than I do with Chambers primarily Pentecostal thinking.

But, I wonder if there is a middle ground to be found even here which is represented/found *within* the Orthodox Tradition--possibly Cassain?. For example, and continuing with what was started above, the traditional Arminian position (such as held by the Pentecostal Movement) focuses on an Absolute Surrender to God, as being "our part", [as shared by the author Andrew Murray who I think you referenced once before also); however, the traditional Calvinist/Reformed position focuses on the Sovereignty of God. And, DEFINITELY, hopefully, NOT to start an ignorant roundabout or fist clenching in preparation for the dreaded trading of haymakers on this subject, but just to point to a contrasting view, or the other side of the continuum here as represented by A.W. Pink, I wonder if there is a middle ground to be found which is representative of the Orthodox Way as it relates to our part of living the Christian life? As it relates to a Christian Philosophy of living, a philosophy of Christian Living?

Somewhere between Murray's work "Absolute Surrender" and Pink's work "The Sovereignty to God" is it possible that we find The Orthodox Way? Is it possible that The Orthodox Way/The Kingdom of God is to be found in 'An Absolute Surrender to the Sovereignty of God?' And, for any who are not very familiar with these two above views this may not make a whole lot of sense, but for those who are familiar with some of Cassian's work in this area, possibly this makes a lot of sense.

So, in an attempt to wrap this one up here, I will say that regarding methods or techniques, I do struggle with what is in bounds and what is out of bounds, at times, to be honest with you, and it may be an impossible thing but I hope to generate some *real* discussion of this aspect. I do know that this is a very private thing, and especially here, in this 'arena' based on past experience . . . who wants to cast their pearls only to have them trampled by swine into the dung and mud on the ground occupied by these creatures. Maybe, this is why I had and enjoyed black mouth curs in a previous life, becuase they were great hog dogs and could put even the meanest and sharpest toothed animal at bay without getting so much as a scratch. But, maybe this is a risk that needs to be taken lest the whole subject remain muted by "fears" of such reaction/behaviour? How ironic now that I think about it to posses a fear of the fear driven. There is a fine line between faith and irresponsibility isn't there? But, with this seed planted for the future in this thread . . . and moving back to the question: What is our part? . . . I am attempting to *discover* (not determine) The Orthodox Way as it relates to a philosophy of Christian Living that may bring about a true discovery/realization/awakening of one's singular potential *within* the Eucharistic Community, and specifically as it relates to this, What is our part? As practically as possible, I am looking for an exploration of this type, where the rubber meets the road. And, sometimes a glance at such extremes as the above is helpful in setting the stage for such a conversation as this, or to help provide a word picture/continuum in this sense in which to locate the middle way; but hopefully we can investigate The Orthodox Way primarily here, and *not* 'merely' provide an anthology of all the other models of this to be found outside what is considered to be Eastern Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

Quote by George Macdonald:

You might say, 'But I do not know how to awake and arise!’

I will tell you:—Get up, and do something the master tells you; so make yourself his disciple at once. Instead of asking yourself whether you believe or not, ask yourself whether you have this day done one thing because he said, "Do it," or once abstained because he said, "Do not do it."

If you can think of nothing he ever said as having had an atom of influence on your doing or not doing, you have too good ground to consider yourself no disciple of his. Do not, I pray you, worse than waste your time in trying to convince yourself that you are his disciple notwithstanding

He knows that you can try, and that in your trying and failing he will be able to help you, until at length you shall do the will of God even as he does it himself. He takes the will in the imperfect deed, and makes the deed at last perfect. Correctest notions without obedience are worthless.

The whole secret of progress is the doing of the thing we know. There is no other way of progress in the spiritual life; no other way of progress in the understanding of that life: only as we do, can we know.

I do not attempt to change your opinions; if they are wrong, the obedience alone on which I insist can enable you to set them right; I only pray you to obey, and assert that thus only can you fit yourselves for understanding the mind of Christ. I say none but he who does right, can think right; you cannot know Christ to be right until you do as he does, as he tells you to do; neither can you set him forth, until you know him as he means himself to be known, that is, as he is.

"If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by that same."

Observe what widest conceivable scope is given by the apostle to honest opinion, even in things of grandest import!—the one only essential point with him is, that whereto we have attained, what we have seen to be true, we walk by that. In such walking, and in such walking only, love will grow, truth will grow; the soul, then first in its genuine element and true relation towards God, will see into reality that was before but a blank to it; and he who has promised to teach, will teach abundantly. Faster and faster will the glory of the Lord dawn upon the hearts and minds of his people so walking—then his people indeed; fast and far will the knowledge of him spread, for truth of action, both preceding and following truth of word, will prepare the way before him.

I'll see what I can find in the Philokalia on this later.

[Rick H.]

"Doing" as the Orthodox Way?

Dear Celinda and All,

As I read George MacDonald's words in your post which emphasize a 'doing, 'I appreciate very much what he is "doing," his method, possibly more than what is said. Or, in other words, in a most pleasing way he is practicing what he preaches in his work, "The Fantastic Imagination," as he writes in the following:




The best thing you can do for your fellow, next to rousing his conscience, is — not to give him things to think about, but to wake things up that are in him; or say, to make him think things for himself.



and, just as stated here, more than not, his method is my method in such places of discussion as we find ourselves today--yes, one's "perception" of the Truth. Otherwise, we might all just as well type our monologues and then pitch them into the fireplace when we are through as it relates to a mere advertising of our thoughts and positions, and presuppositions. Where's the benefit in a collection of monologues in comparison to a genuine dialogue as we find in the world of relation or a being as communion?/! Because, anything short of the dynamic or the life of a conversation such as our's now that is void of the 'rousing' or the 'awakening' that MacDonald speaks of results in a dead conversation, and in the end, the end. And, now I am thinking of the words of a German reformer who wrote in his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, as it relates to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, when he said, "Into the ashcan with your presuppositions!" His point was understood very well by all, but possibly this approach is not the best thing you can do for your fellow, or yourself, in terms of creating an environment such as what is desired (and required) here.

I appreciate MacDonald's methodology primarily because this, clearly, is what we see employed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and his disciples, in the Holy Scriptures. As we turn the pages of the Holy Writ, we see a variety of individual means/vehichles utilized to wake things up in a man or a woman, and as MacDonald also says, "to make him think things for himself." As has been written by another here in this community:




But perception of truth in Christ is a reality that requires a conversion of our understanding, of our approach to understanding; that demands a spinning about on the heels of our normal way . . . and realizing that what is being encountered is not in fact complex, but simple, if the mind is properly converted to it. And that conversion comes often through a dramatic change in ways of thinking.



In many ways as we consider such things as "our part" of the Christian life, as well as even 'methods' or techniques which may serve as aids for the realization/conversion, and spinning about on one's heels (spoken of above), how can we not take heed of MacDonald's emphasis on "doing." But, at the same time, is the "doing" deserving of the place of primacy for either the novice or seasoned practitioner? Regarding the mutual embrace that is implied in the Orthodox 'understanding' of of union with God via synergia/cooperation, the question was asked in a subtitle, in this thread a few posts back, is this "Reserved for the Initiated?" And, this brings us back full circle at this point as we consider now, for those who would subscribe to this Orthodox Epistemology, Who are the initiated? And, how did they become so initiated?

What did they "do"? . . . Or, what didn't they "do?" . . . to reach such a place?
What was their part? Was their way the only way?

And, even here we run out possibly a little too far. We move to the fringe of our discussion where such thinking about faith and works will hopefully not take this ship towards the rocks. However, as we consider "doing" or "works" or even such thinking centering on a "negation of works" (which is still a work!) . . . or as we consider such concepts as seemingly the opposite viz. providing an "Absolute Surrender" (which implies that one has absolute freedom to begin with) . . . the question remains, What is our part of living the Christian life?


As one may say, again to quote MacDonald (above):



You might say, 'But I do not know how to awake and arise!’


and as one may answer as MacDonald has:



I will tell you:—Get up, and do something the master tells you; so make yourself his disciple at once. Instead of asking yourself whether you believe or not, ask yourself whether you have this day done one thing because he said, "Do it," or once abstained because he said, "Do not do it."


and, here we see the emphasis is being placed on obedience/activity/doing, just as others have treated this subject by *simplifying* things via pointing to the primacy of such things as 'doing' or 'feeling' or 'knowing' or even "being." Another German Christian thinker who has also been a huge influence on many of us, most unaware I think, does make a very good case for the primacy of 'feeling' as it relates to the real thing, and an absolute dependence on God. But, your contribution here, Celinda, is a very good place to start as it relates to our topic I think.

And, while I know Macdonald was not too keen about most of the Calvinistic doctrines, and I think he even got himself in trouble with his preaching on the topic of universalism at his church (which shows the opposite point of view), I must say that I am not sure he is without influence from the Scottish Calvinists in his Philosophy of Christian living. While they may have desired to burn him at the stake for his eschatology in his day, I'm sure they would have had no trouble with his pointing to a theology of "do-do-do" or a "paddle-paddle-paddle" of the canoe, which is very good Calvinistic/Reformed teaching!

Actually, I'm not so sure that he doesn't exceed his countrymen here in the following:




The whole secret of progress is the doing of the thing we know. There is no other way of progress in the spiritual life; no other way of progress in the understanding of that life: only as we do, can we know.



And, I know that MacDonald is a writer of fiction and stands in a very unique place not unlike the table at which Tolkien or Lewis would sit, but in this above sharing of the secret . . . Ouch! To be brutally honest with you, from where I stand, this is like Anselm on speed here. I would not want to have to defend this link/secret which asserts there is NO OTHER WAY of "progress" in the *understanding* of "that"[?] life (I guess the life of doing and knowing?) But Double Ouch! as he goes on to link doing and knowing as he says: *ONLY* as we do, can we know. Possibly, he is in a zone of sorts when he is writing this, but from where I sit, this is more akin to what the Buddha says, when he says "come and see" which is not unlike a vendor inviting you to sample his 'food or drink' in order to see what you think or if you like it . . . by saying something like "try it you'll like it." And, now I'm crossing over into liturgical study here, which may or may not be helpful in terms of "taste and see" but this is not a free sample booth here, like at the grocery store. And, I am all for making people think for themselves, but possibly we should pull off of this for now . . .

And, as I am looking for a place to land this thing now :) . . possibly we can leave off with at least a somewhat open ended question:

-- As it relates to such things as "Knowing" or "Feeling" or "Doing" or "Being," can we point to the primacy of one of these things? Can things such as this be ranked or prioritized? Or, in other words, is it possible that one of these things above contains the other three?

Or, possibly better yet, knowing there is clearly an "integration" principle at work in the above categories if we were to attempt to link one or more of these (not unlike MacDonald's attempt to link two of these above):

--Would we promote the primacy of "doing and knowing" or would we possibly see another way(s)?

And, to move just a bit further here, in line with the Royal Law spoken of in the Scriptures, as it relates to this type of epistemology which would extract one ontological principle and hold it up as being the ONLY way . . .

--as we consider the link between Love/agape and "our part" of living the Christian life, I wonder what the Written Word says about this. Especially, as it relates to our being, what is The Orthodox Way of Knowing God so that the fruit of this relationship/communion will manifest itself in our life?

Possibly, some would reason 'doing' is a vehicle/method/aid for achieving a true 'knowing' which yields a 'feeling' and in turn brings about a truly Orthodox Ontology whereby as Macdonald has said above, there is NO OTHER WAY! In this sense we must, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, struggle . . . struggle . . . struggle. And, we must as well, "do-do-do" or "paddle-paddle-paddle."

But, if we say this is "our part" and this is the "only way," then what else are we saying?

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

As it relates to such things as "Knowing" or "Feeling" or "Doing" or "Being," can we point to the primacy of one of these things? Can things such as this be ranked or prioritized?

Knowledge is superior to information
Wisdom is superior to knowledge
Humility is superior to wisdom

Jesus is the "reason".

[Rick H.]

Dear Herman,

Here's one from your mentor that comes to mind:

"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
Ask me a riddle and I reply:
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie."

In Christ,
Rick

PS You really are going to have to get that Benjamin Hoff book!

[Celinda Grace]

As it relates to such things as "Knowing" or "Feeling" or "Doing" or "Being," can we point to the primacy of one of these things?

One of the traps we get bogged down in is trying to 'absolutize' our relationship with God. It is after all a relationship. That means that God approached each of us individually meeting our individual needs depending on our own personality and circumstances.

Here is a question to consider.

An emphasis on doing can lead to legalism if it is not done out of our relationship with God and as a response to His leading.

An emphasis on surrender (being) can lead to passivity if not balanced by the call to obey.

An emphasis on feeling can lead to despair if not properly balanced by the emphasis on faith. But an emphasis on faith that ignores our feeling will lead to a dead religion with no motivation.

An emphasis on knowing without putting that knowledge into action under the guidance of Love becomes useless intellectual arrogance. Yet love without knowledge is mere sentimentalism.

What other traps do you see?

[Rick H.]

An emphasis on surrender (being) can lead to passivity if not balanced by the call to obey.



Dear Celinda,

You have given us all so much to think about here and elsewhere recently, that I don't know where to start. And, I think we have multiple conversations going on, all of which are very good from my limited point of view. But, possibly, we can tie most of them together here in this place.

I appreciate your balanced view, as expressed in your last post very much. For what it is worth, I will share with you that sometimes I make a statement or ask a question to solicit a particular response that can take us to the next level or in order to create a dynamic learning community whereby we all benefit.

And, I probably should be in bed now, instead of trying to grind out just one more post tonight. . . BUT :) I want to point to something that I think is interesting in your last post. In your above quote, which I agree with entirely, except for the parenthetical note, I wonder if you really meant to link surrender with "being?" I guess you can link "being" with just about anything really, so possibly you just placed it there without it really having a great significance attached. But, this really got my attention because if I were to intentionally link "being" with anything, I think I would fall in line very fast with the thinking of the Orthodox who have pointed to a relational ontology in the form of 'being as communion.' And, on the one hand, this may seem trivial. But, on a closer examination, I don't think it is, especially as it relates to such things as The Contemplative Life or the world of relation itself! Does any of this verbiage sound familiar, or am I just heading out to sea by myself on this one?

Again, I appreciate your emphasis on the balanced approach as a rule, and if we see a continuum something along the lines of "active-active-active" on one end and on the other end "passive-passive-passive," then there must be a middle ground in this sense, I think. But, actually, once we move to transcend this whole continuum via the world of relation, I wonder how this may impact what we consider to be "our part" of the Christian life.

And, also, I would like to try to have a dialogue about methods here as well if possible. Father R. has done some most helpful writing on this subject here in this thread. We have covered some ground that I was pleasantly surprised to find myself on here in the past. But, there are still other territories to explore for those who have the desire to do so.

Let's take for example the Trappists who promote what is known by some as Centering Prayer. I understand there are entire websites (mostly American Fundamentalists) devoted to exposing the evil to be found within this approach. Possibly, as we move forward in a continued consideration of "our part" and "methods" we could consider the viability or the lack of it for some who may be interested in practicing Centering Prayer?

In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

Rick,

This is from part of your post on the Contemplation thread-
Possibly, therein lies some of my frustration, whereby, so far my experience with Orthodoxy can be can be pretty well represented by this type of thing. An issue comes up, everyone quotes their favorite saint or father. We hear that I was taught this, or I was taught that . . .

This is one of my main sticking points wth Orthodoxy. I don't mind that people argue over such things, that is just immaturity resulting from finding one's identity in our 'group' rather then God. Only when God comes in and heals us and fills that place where we are looking for some core validation of who we are can this really be overcome. And that healing is only the result of ascetic practice.

What concerns me (and I agree, I would really like some of the more mature Orthodox to weigh in here) is have the Orthodox discerned the essence, the logoi of Orthodoxy? (Thanks Antonius for posting the definition!)

Example of a lack of this. Father John the local priest gave me a book called "Thirsting for God" Here are some quotes of the author's trying to defend the Liturgy.


Worship whose object is the unchangeable God must itself be changeless in nature.

varied non traditional worship rituals of the contemporary PC divide Christians in their worship of God.


This is simply not true. Sure we worship an unchangeable God, but we worship Him as individuals who are changing and growing. And anyway worship is not confined to liturgy but ought to be the essence of every action we do.

I also do not see that different styles of worship in any way promote disunity or division. The author is coming from a backround of 'worship consumerism' and this has prejudiced his view. He has overreacted and put blame outside where it is really a matter of internal disposition. When I go to some different church I simply accept whatever is offered and find God there.

I see the need for structure, but does the OC, at its core, defend its own particular structure as being essential? If so why? Dr. Steenberg in other posts has talked about the living knowledge of Apostolic tradition - the same unchanging reality but articulated as a growing revelation. It seems to me that this should be true not just for doctrine but for practice. Is the understanding of the ascetic way growing or has it ossified? It is living or dead?

[Celinda Grace]

Just a note from personal experience on Centering prayer.

I am not sure if I can express this very well, but it seems the essence of the path to a right relationship with God is to let go of ourselves and attach to God. Centering prayer fosters letting go but it offers no object to attach to.

Before discovering the Orthodox 'mystic tradition' (it almost seems weird to call it mystic because although based in mystery, it is mystery one can touch, The RC mystic tradition is almost entirely mystery untouchable -there is no proper integration between the sensible and non-sensible realities in the RC) I was reading much of the RC stuff and got involved in centering prayer .

Because of what God was doing in my life my typical 'conversational' approach to prayer was not working and the distractions in my mind were driving me absolutely crazy as I tried to move into more prayer of the heart. I was looking for some way to get my mind under control so I read Keating's book and started doing Centering Prayer. It helped to an extent.

However, eventually I started to bog down in it. It helped me quiet my mind, but I wanted more then that. I was looking for God in my prayers. Centering prayer helped me to detach from sensible realities, but not to attach to God. I have been wobbling between centering and conversational prayers with no way to integrate mind and heart.

When I went to talk to Fr. John I hadn't specifically mentioned this problem, (I hadn't really thought about the problem much) but when discussing prayer he suggested I try the Jesus prayer. I had read about this before but not given it much thought, but it was the one thing that God brought to my memory when I got home so I decided to try it.

The effort of concentrating my desire for God on the words as a way to touch the reality behind them solved the disunion I had been experiencing and I can tell that the regular practice of this is going to be much better then centering prayer. We are created with a desire for God, and that desire in order to grow needs some object to attach to. Centering prayer was killing my desire.

The more I learn, the more I see that the whole spiritual path has to be seen in light of an iconic movement. We use the sensible to reach the non-sensible. It seems to me that the rejection of the sensible as a way of attempting to reach the non-sensible is always going to bog down in quietism somewhere. (In fact Cynthia Bourgeault's book, Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening is full of quietistic thinking.) This lack of object is why centering prayer is popular among the new agey types and why they are able to use it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Celinda wrote:



I see the need for structure, but does the OC, at its core, defend its own particular structure as being essential? If so why? Dr. Steenberg in other posts has talked about the living knowledge of Apostolic tradition - the same unchanging reality but articulated as a growing revelation. It seems to me that this should be true not just for doctrine but for practice. Is the understanding of the ascetic way growing or has it ossified? It is living or dead?

There is a sense in which an Orthodox expression of the faith is unchanging not as an absolute principle but rather in the sense of spiritual continuity. In other words we have the conviction that throughout the course of the Church's history we have the same shared Apostolic faith. And this Apostolic Faith no matter the variation with which it has been expressed still is the same Faith. This in fact is what Tradition is: a continuity of the one Faith as expressed over time through the life of the Church. This could be the point of the priest's comments you read.

At the same time though the expression of the Faith does change over time. To take only one example: our Eucharistic service of today is much different in structure from that of Apostolic times. But yet there is also a continuity between the two which is crucial.

In other words in all of our life within the Church- the services, piety, etc- there is a balance between an inner continuity of the One Apostolic Faith which is unchanging and its expression which constantly changes in accordance with circumstances.

Without the latter the Faith is dead. But without the former there is nothing of the Faith actually being expressed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Is the understanding of the ascetic way growing or has it ossified? It is living or dead?

Every group has its pharisees. I do not think it is a secret that within Orthodoxy, there are those who seem to "worship" the trappings. There is (at least I feel there is) a tendency in some circles to turn the Faith into a cultural museum, something to dust off on certain days to "remember where we came from" rather than encountering the Risen Lord. Once the Church becomes "frozen" in time, once it ceases to adapt to the society it finds itself in, it will eventually die. Such groups tend to grow smaller over time.

At the same time, there are those who do not understand the importance and intricacy of maintaining the Apostolic Witness. If we pray as we believe and believe as we pray, what and how we pray affects how and what we believe. Therefore change does happen, but it certainly needs to happen with discernment and patience. We do not want to "change God" by accomodating our Faith to "fit" our lives. Better to work to change our lives to "accomodate" God. There is certainly a dynamic tension in evidence (alluded to previously in this thread) that works to maintain a proper balance. I suspect this is the Holy Spirit at work, but that might just be me.

We also tend to forget, in a soundbite and microwave world, that the Church measures time in centuries. Changes generally take many generations to occur. God's time is not our time, since "...a thousand years are as a day..." to God.

Change happens. Again, I think it is the triumph of the true Apostolic Witness that has been safeguarded for over two millenia by the Holy Orthodox Church that, despite geography, culture, time, and language, I can worship in any Orthodox Church and KNOW what I am worshipping and know that I share a common Faith with the others there. I do not find that true in most Protestant churches, even of the same denomination.

I left the Protestant churches, because I could not find a common Faith, and because I found the "answers" mostly shallow or non-existant. But the treasures I have found and continue to find in the Holy Orthodox Church continue to amaze and delight me, and it just goes deeper and deeper—"further up and further in" as C. S. Lewis so delightfully put it in the last book of his Narnia chronicles.

That, for me, has been the difference that keeps me in the Orthodox Church.

[Father David Moser]

Example of a lack of this. Father John the local priest gave me a book called "Thirsting for God"

Celinda,

I think you have to distinguish here between books like Thirsting for God and its ilk (Becoming Orthodox, Facing East, etc) on one hand and true expositions of Orthodox faith and belief on the other. The first set of books are more about one person's (or group of persons') spiritual journey and their account of their own conflicts and how they worked through them to come to Orthodoxy. This is not the full essence of the Orthodox Faith. It does, however, express the essence of the Orthodox Faith in that it is personal and thus takes expression in many forms. Do we not have "Greek" Orthodoxy and "Russian" Orthodoxy and "Serbian" Orthodoxy etc (not to mention the fledgling "American" Orthodoxy). There are many structural and practical differences between the various local traditions - and yet these differences are the "personal" expression of the same Truth.

And here I think is another important thing to remember (and which we all constantly forget) - Truth is not a thing, or a code of principles, but rather Truth is a Person. Pilate asked Christ "What is Truth?" and received no answer - not because our Lord was "withholding" anything from him but rather because he asked the wrong question. The right question is "Who is Truth?" and had Pilate asked that question - he would have certainly received an answer - that the Truth stood before him, beaten and in rags, condemned to death. When we begin to view Truth as something other than the Person of Jesus Christ, then we get a wrong headed notion that there must be some kind of absolute "code of principles" - a definitive set of rules about how things ought to be.

Another thing to consider is that when we come to Christ we must be "born again" and "become as little children". As one who has studied child development, I can say with great certainty that all children go through a stage in their development where they require a rigid and unchanging external structure in order to develop their own internal identity. Small children do not look for abstract principles, but for concrete rules and laws and when they find and grasp a consistent, functional set of unchanging rules, they believe that they understand the working of the universe (at least of their own universe) But they do not remain this way into adulthood for with development comes the time when one begins to grasp a larger worldview, to perceive the abstract inner essence of the concrete outer system and to begin to test those abstract principles and incorporate them into one's own being and behavior.

So also when we take up the yoke of Christ, we are like little children (even if we are physically adults) and we tend to view the Truth as a "what" rather than a "who" and having grasped a set of rules that works, we think we understand the Church - but alas such is not so for with time comes the maturation in the faith, the trial and questioning of the rules and the change to grasping the essence of the rules. This is the change from child to adolescent and adult.

Orthodoxy is in many ways a "new" phenomenon in North America and other western cultures. As a result there are a lot of recent adult converts who though they are physically adults, are in fact children in the faith. Having discovered and grasped a concrete set of "rules" that they call "tradition" they then think they have grasped the core of Orthodoxy - but they have not yet for Orthodoxy for them is still a "what" and not a "who" But in this age of the internet and of easy publication - anyone who writes a decent bit of prose can be published and when you are published, you become an instant authority ("it says so right here it black and white, it must be true" right?)

This is my own "sticking point" with the plethora of Orthodox books out there. They are in a sense "children's books" full of wonder and excitement of a whole new world in front of them, personal stories of struggle and victory. However they are not the authoritative teaching of the Church or an expression of her essence - only the saints can begin to teach that - and even then there are things that are beyond the ability to be written or expressed (as St Paul mentioned in 2Cor. 12:4) Thus Orthodoxy can only fully be grasped or expressed as the life of the One Who is Truth living in us. The practices and traditions of the Church are time tested and verified expressions of that Life but they are not the Life itself.

Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

May the Beauty and Spirit of Wisdom that is shining on US here today continue.

There is suffering; but, may Love abide

In Christ Jesus,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

In other words in all of our life within the Church- the services, piety, etc- there is a balance between an inner continuity of the One Apostolic Faith which is unchanging and its expression which constantly changes in accordance with circumstances.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Once the Church becomes "frozen" in time, once it ceases to adapt to the society it finds itself in, it will eventually die. Such groups tend to grow smaller over time.



Thanks this is what I was looking for. One of the strengths of the PC for me is its very adaptability, it's ability to engage culture where culture is at. There needs to be some ability to adjust the clothing of the message without compromising the message. As a Protestant just looking at Orthodoxy from the outside, the OC seems pretty inflexible. The history of the OC and how it has changed over time is not something I have looked into yet.

One of the truths that I have learned is that love comes down. God humbled Himself to become like us so that we could become like Him. Love molds itself to our need without loosing its essence and power to heal, for its very power to heal lies in this ability to be what we are while remaining itself. To me it seems that the PC has grasped this truth much more deeply in its own stumbling way then the OC. It is encouraging to know the principle is there in the OC even if in my eyes at the moment it seems rather ill-kept.

At heart what drives me on my journey is not just my own need to grow but a deep concern to find answers to the problems of postmodernism. I catch glimpses now and then of what God is doing and it seems to me that the answers I am seeking lie within the OC. I am not the only one.
This is a quote by Dr. James Houston talking from the perspective of looking at where God is moving the PC.

"If the church is going to experience a second reformation, this one dealing with sanctification as the first dealt with justification, then we’ll need to recover the doctrine of the Trinity and understand its implications for human community."

Small communities such as the ‘Desert Fathers’, or the early monastic communities, brought reform to the Constantine Church in late Antiquity. Perhaps today, small study/retreat centers, personal nurture, network of friendships in Christ, will facilitate a ‘Relational reformation of the Church’, to live with a much more radical consciousness that truly is ‘Christ-like".

Mostly what I have seen on the evangelism threads here is Orthodox trying to copy PC methods of evangelism. I think Dr. Houston sees more clearly the needs of our culture.

PS The book was not by a priest and I recognize that it is not authoritative but personal. I just needed something as a starting point to ask this question It has been spinning around in my head for a while but I wasn't sure how to word it.

[Celinda Grace]

Just a PS to my above post. I was introduced to Dr. Houston through Dr. Larry Crabb a popular and well respected Protestant writer who used to be a Christian counselor but who has sinced moved into spiritual direction.

From one of Dr. Crabb's more recent books "The Safest Place on Earth"


"My burden is to see spiritual communities develop, where spiritual friends and spiritual directors connect with people. I long to see communities where people feel safe enough to be broken. Where a vision of what the Spirit wants to do in people's lives sustains them, even when the are far from it. Where wisdom from God sees what the Spirit is right now doing and what is getting in His way. Where the literal life of Christ pours out of one to energize that life in another, offering His divine touch."

What he is looking for is the OC at its best.

[Rick H.]

A Defining of Terms?

Dear Celinda, and all,

There have been so many excellent posts here filled with such substantial content that it is really hard to know which direction to move at this point. But, ultimately, knowing we can 'loop back' or do some 'backtracking' in the future, possibly, we can presently consider the subject in which the most ink has been spilled of late.

As we consider what has been shared openly and honestly as one's 'frustrations' with Eastern Orthodoxy, and as has been shared as another's 'sticking point' with Eastern Orthodoxy, possibly we can put *this* under the magnifying glass (as opposed to 'behind the looking glass'), or maybe better yet, as it relates to 'a place of learning', we can put this under the microscope here as we consider the following two quotes from Frs. David and Raphael."

First, from Father David in this thread two days ago:




The practices and traditions of the Church are time tested and verified expressions of that Life but they are not 'the Life' itself.



And, second, from Father Raphael in another thread today:




Tradition is the manifestation of the Church's 'very life' in its every aspect.



In the past, when I have noticed here in monachosland others who are trying to harmonize such things as what is being shared in the above, (especially when an appeal is made to the archives), and again especially when there is nothing more than a sincere desire to understand, it is common to point out that the 'seeker' cannot understand because he/she is not yet Orthodox or has not been Orthodox long enough. And, while I appreciate the sentiment behind this way of thinking, in the end as it applies namely to such things as evangelism and mission, not to mention apologetics, it really is a flat-footed approach.

So, in Father David's quote you can see the context in this thread above, and in Father Raphael's quote you can see the context in the thread titled: "The significance of a proper understanding of tradition within the Church," which really is an outstanding title! So you can see these statements are not taken out of context.

But, this is a good example, I think, of what lies behind the question here. In fact, look at the modifier that Fr. R. has chosen for the word "life" in his statement--'very.' The "very" life (and watch this again as he drives the point home) in its "every" aspect. He says these are "manifestations."

Now, please compare this to Fr. D's "expressions" of that "Life" as he says, "they are not the Life itself."

Please, take another look if you need to, sometimes we can loose our focus when looking through a microscope as we are doing now. And, in light of Fr. D's assertion in his last post, about Truth being a "who" as opposed to a "what," one may be left to wonder:

Are the practices and traditions "verified" expressions of the Church; but, 'not the Life itself', or is tradition a manifestation of 'the Church's "very" life'--in every aspect?

In Christ,
Rick

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." --The Apostle Paul

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Are the practices and traditions "verified" expressions of the Church; but, 'not the Life itself', or is tradition a manifestation of 'the Church's "very" life'--in every aspect?

I don't see these two statements as being in any sort of tension with each other.

Note that in my previous post I emphatically stated that Tradition, which is the very life of the Church, is always a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. If it is not it is only human custom.

In Christ- Fr Raphael



"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." --The Apostle Paul[/QUOTE]

[Trudy]

Are the practices and traditions "verified" expressions of the Church; but, 'not the Life itself', or is tradition a manifestation of 'the Church's "very" life'--in every aspect?

I'm not sure this may apply and rather than posting the same thing in two different places, but on the Tradition, Scripture, Intellect and Experience » The significance of a proper understanding of tradition within the Church thread, I found an excellent passage in Saint Silouan by Fr. Sophrony that may be helpful to this discussion. The post is # 7.

Trudy

[Rick H.]

Dear Trudy, Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you both for your contributions. Yes, Trudy, I think your post on the other thread does speak to this and is most helpful (to me personally as well). But, even in these two short posts, I think my suspicions are being confirmed that there is a very fertile field waiting for some in our community to benefit from, in this particular discussion. I wonder who else would like to weigh in on the summary question from above in the following:




Are the practices and traditions "verified" expressions of the Church; but, 'not the Life itself', or is tradition a manifestation of 'the Church's "very" life'--in every aspect?



In Christ,
Rick

[Father David Moser]

Are the practices and traditions "verified" expressions of the Church; but, 'not the Life itself', or is tradition a manifestation of 'the Church's "very" life'--in every aspect?

And here is the greatest difficulty with internet discussion groups in general- too many teachers. Fr Raphael and I are saying exactly the same thing - however we are coming at it each from our own perspective. I may well define my terms slightly differently than he which means that we end up with seemingly contradictory statements. But they are not contradictory at all! It is important to have one spiritual father and not many - to have one instructor in the faith (a "primary physician") to coordinate and contextualize the multitude of sources for material. But here we have two "instructors" (myself and Fr Raphael) who seem to be at odds, when in fact we are not. You have to choose to enter into his intellectual environment and interpret my comments in his context or choose to enter my intellectual environment and interpret his comments in my context. Otherwise - if you sit outside and look at them with no context - they appear to conflict because you are comparing apples and oranges all the while thinking that you are seeing peaches.


Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

I certainly agree with Fr. David, and I also see both statements as complimentary, not oppositional. The Life of the Church is not the same as a life lived in the Church. The life of the community is not the life of the individual, but the lives of the individuals make up the Life of the Church.

[Celinda Grace]

Are the practices and traditions "verified" expressions of the Church; but, 'not the Life itself', or is tradition a manifestation of 'the Church's "very" life'--in every aspect?

Rick,
I think that you place the emphasis on the wrong place. A verified expression of the life of the Church is much the same as a manifestation of the life of the Church.

The Life itself is a mystery -The wind blows where it will but no one knows where it comes from or where it is going. (John 3:?) However, the practices and traditions are valid ways to participate in that life. The essence of that life is reflected in those traditions.

Here is the essence of that life:
quote by Watchman Nee, The Normal Christain Life

It is altogether wrong for us to think that we can experience anything of the spiritual life in ourselves merely, and apart from Him. God does not intend that we should aquire something exclusively personal in our experience, and he is not willing to effect anything like that for you and me. All the spiritual experience of the Christian is already true in Christ. It has already been experienced by Christ. What we call our experience is only our entering into his history and his experience.


Spiritual Truth is not like propostional truth, there is more then one way to conceptualize or picture the same truth, likewise there is more then one way to live out the Life of the Church. Think of a snowflake - no two are the same and yet each individual snowflake contains within itself the essence of what it means to be a snowflake.

I have said before that there is life within the Protestant Church and that life takes many different expressions, but it is the same life. (not the fullness of life*(see below)

Fr. David and Raphael,

I notice that Fr. Raphael says 'manifestation of that life' -this is an acknowledgement that the practice grows out of the life that is already there.

Fr. David says 'verified' expression. I have noticed that he tends to be more conservative and is concerned with doing things 'right'. He is stressing the fact that what is practiced has been tested by time.

Maybe I am misinterpreting -please correct me if I am wrong about what you are saying.

Thinking about this has given me some insight into the OC's lack of fluidity of practice. Right now most of the converts are those who have converted precisely because they are looking for the extra security that comes from time tested practice, they are looking for the security of knowing they are in something bigger then themselves that has the weight of history behind it. They are looking for 'verified' expressions. And the cradle Orthodox are comfortable with and proud of the current way things are. This provides no motive for any serious consideration for adapting to the culture's needs rather then making those from the culture adapt to what is already established.

Please, I am not critisizing, nor even suggesting that things ought to change, I am just hoping to prompt some self-reflection.



*It is not the fullness of life found within the OC because of ignorance of tradition and ignorance of the full path from purgation through illumination through deification. Being born in rationalism there is no real understanding of the rebirth in the Spirit that occurs at illumination and the subsequent dangers and struggles that occur. Teachers like Nee and Chambers that have some better grasp of the fullness of this life are hidden away among all the other teachers and not given the recognition they deserve. In fact there is a complete ignorance that there even are certain recongizable stages that one travels through. There is little recognition of what it means to be spiritually mature and so there is no honor given to 'adults'. The PC is a nursery, it is never-never land where the children play and don't grow up.

But the reason I included the quotes from Crabb and Houston is that when you have life in you, you grow whether you are aware of it or not. There are segments of the PC that are starting to grow up into the Spirit. In fact if you look at the history of the PC and study the moves of God within it, if you look at the different revivals and discern the essence of God's movement within them and the changes in church and culture that came as a result you will find that the PC itself, as a whole, is slowly growing up and traveling through the stages of spiritual growth.

[Rick H.]

Dear Celinda, and All,

What a good day! . . . it looks like the high caliber discussion is going to continue here after all. And, while there may be room for some John Houseman type of action, here on my part, as you say Celinda, I think we must also allow some room for some Roseanne Roseannadanna action here in some of the other ''intellectual environments' as well. Those familiar with Gilda Radner, and SNL, will know about the latter, and those who are familiar with the Smith Barney commercials that Houseman did, know that at times, Houseman would "place 'emphasis' on words that do not require 'emphasis.'" So when you say:




Rick,

I think that you place the emphasis on the wrong place. A verified expression of the life of the Church is much the same as a manifestation of the life of the Church.




I say, fair enough--possibly these words did not require any emphasis at this stage, and in fact this detracted from the main point. However, if necessary, I would like to point out here that none of the words used there are mine, these are taken from the Frs. Raphael and David's posts directly. And, I think I can see how it is going to be a challenge here in this dialogue to stay focused. Admittedly, I have not looked through a microscope many times my life; but, I can remember clearly that it was hard to really see what was on the slide until you got the thing adjusted and focused just right.

And, this is not to take anything away from what you have said here in your usual excellent contribution Celinda, because you are all over the reason why I started this thread in the first place with what you have shared above today! Yes, Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life, how perfect! And, this is so ironic for me, and I am laughing a bit as I type this, because, I have tried so hard to get the type of conversation going that you are offering here NOW . . . and I am actually find myself wanting to shine a light just on the periphery of this at the present. So, Celinda, please know that I am a master of going back through the "keepers" in a thread and bringing top shelf contributions back to the forefront. You have brought up some things here in this thread today and in the past that I suspect we will see again. But, I guess what I am saying at the present is firstly thank you. And, secondly, possibly we should see if any others would like to weigh in by simplifying things.

I have three main avenues that I would like to follow as it relates to the very dialogue. But, I understand that some may be made to feel nervous or threatened as we consider such things--so maybe we should take it slowly with this in mind. And, yes, let me try again with this one by removing all emphasis and simplifying as much as possible in the following:

First, from Father David in this thread:





The . . . traditions of the Church . . . are not the Life itself.





And, second, from Father Raphael in another thread:





Tradition is . . . the Church's very life in its every aspect.




If I remember correctly:

Father Rapheal says he "sees no tension here."

Father David says 'it seems contradictory" . . . 'but I am seeing peaches while in reality they are apples and oranges.'

And, Herman says, "I agree with Fr. David . . . and then he moves to a discourse about individualism . . ."

But, ultimately, Father David is correct when he points to context and meaning of the author. Yes, a thousand times yes . . . even here context is king, and *not* rex lex-lex rex!!! As Captain Jack Sparrow says, "Savvy?"

So, unless we are forced to find our answer in one of the above three responses, then we must return to the well, so to say, and dig a little deeper by asking:

1.) Fr. R.: When you say Tradition is the Church's very life in its every aspect, what do you mean?

2.) Fr. D: When you say the traditions of the Church are not the Life itself, what do you mean?

And, I hope that nobody reads any hostility into this post today--because there is none, actually just the opposite, gratitude for this opportunity. These are fair questions I think--that so far have gone completely unanswered.

So, Celinda, after reading this 'brief' :) post, what do you think?

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Celinda wrote:



I notice that Fr. Raphael says 'manifestation of that life' -this is an acknowledgement that the practice grows out of the life that is already there.

...

Maybe I am misinterpreting -please correct me if I am wrong about what you are saying.

Yes, this is what I am saying. Tradition is the Holy Spirit as manifest within the life of the Church. It is the way in which the Church reveals the life which is already there.

We have to be very careful about the use of the words 'unchanging Faith' however. Mostly these words are used in relation to critical deviations in the Faith; ie heresy. So the unchanging Faith relates to unwarranted and human changes to the Faith which result in its fundamental distortion. The Faith of the Church however is that same Faith as taught by Christ and passed on to His Holy Disciples and Apostles. It is the same Faith which they then passed on to the next generations and so on.

We can already read of this fundamental sense of the unchanging Faith in the post-Apostolic Fathers like St Irenaeus of Lyons, St Vincent of Lerins, St Cyprian of Carthage and many others. What they addressed was a need to preserve the fundamental unity of the Faith in the face of heretical distortions of this Faith. And for these Fathers as they worked this out within their thought & writings the fundamental unity & continuity of the Faith is found within the Church as a reflection of Her very nature.

An unchanging Faith however does not mean that the Fathers believed that the expression of this Faith does not change. Certainly it does over time according to circumstances. Our services and piety are not identical in expression to that of every time and place within the Church's history. Nor is our theological expression identical. But yet its core is the same.

Again though we have to be very careful here. The Church's fundamental message is neither about not changing nor about changing. Rather it is that its entire life be guided by and an expression of the Holy Spirit. Only in this way is the Church the true Body of Christ.

In this life of the Holy Spirit we do not hold up as principles in themselves that we must change or not change. Beyond concern about this it is more that the people of God become sensitive to how God is guiding them. Whether this involves change or not is only an afterthought. In some ways our life in Christ always involves change while in other ways it never does.

What after all is repentance but a change in self as we understand this? But yet in coming to repentance we keep coming back to some central point of what we are over and over again.

Similarly it is with finding Christ. At each point in our lives as we find Christ there is more to discover about Him. But yet it is the same Christ.

Man was created to unite through himself both the Uncreated and the created. These two natural impulses towards the timeless and that which is created have become distorted & opposed only because of our falleness. St Dionysios the Areopagite refers to a transfigured reality in which reaching out and stability are united in a constant movement towards God. So within the Church the opposition of these two is gradually healed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Rick:

What do you mean when you ask?:



1.) Fr. R.: When you say Tradition is the Church's very life in its every aspect, what do you mean?

In light of the previous posts I'm not sure what you are asking.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you very much for the above post! I love reading your writing such as the above. And, in your opening remarks you have answered my question very clearly and very well when you say:




Tradition is the Holy Spirit as manifest within the life of the Church.



Just for the record, I agree with this 100% . . . how could anyone challenge this?

And, now to answer your question about what do I mean? about what do you mean? :) . . .

I am trying to understand the Orthodox Way as promoted in the following by Father David:




But here we have two "instructors" (myself and Fr Raphael) who seem to be at odds, when in fact we are not. You have to choose to enter into his intellectual environment and interpret my comments in his context or choose to enter my intellectual environment and interpret his comments in my context.



I agree with his statement here in that you and he "seem to be at odds." But, he says that one must choose to enter into either your intellectual environment or his in order to be able to interpret these seemingly conflicting statements. So, this is what I am attempting to stage.

You see Father, I agree with you when you say "Tradition is the Church's very life in its every aspect." And, I agree with Celindas equating of manifestations to expressions in the above. But, now we are left with the statement by Father David:




"the traditions of the Church are not the Life itself."



Again, without developing these two assertions (the one by you and the one by Fr. D.) they are clearly antithetical.

I think it would be hard to even work a synthesis here. But, this is what I mean. And, I can go back and cut and paste what is needed to provide the context in which this statement was made in this thread, if necessary.

And, also, just for the record I am not running this around just because I have nothing better to do. This 'very' situation completely explains the chaos we see in the real world, as well as here in some threads on monachos, as Orthodox folks engage each other in nothing short of total shock, when one finds out what the other believes.

We have all seen this! Things can become very nasty when one Orthodox says to another, "Well, I was taught this!" To which his/her brother or sister replies, "Well, I was taught that!" Again, as Father David rightly shares on this type of thing in the following:




And here is the greatest difficulty with internet discussion groups in general- too many teachers. Fr Raphael and I are saying exactly the same thing - however we are coming at it each from our own perspective. I may well define my terms slightly differently than he which means that we end up with seemingly contradictory statements. But they are not contradictory at all! It is important to have one spiritual father and not many - to have one instructor in the faith (a "primary physician") to coordinate and contextualize the multitude of sources for material. But here we have two "instructors" (myself and Fr Raphael) who seem to be at odds, when in fact we are not.



Do you see what I mean now Father?

Do you see how in even this scenario, right here, right now, it is easy to see how some who had different teachers can say, "Well, I was taught that the tradition of the Church is its very life" and to which it could be replied by another student, "Well, I was taught that the tradition of the Church is not the very life itself."

And, I guess I have started down one of my avenues here a little earlier than I had anticipated. But, this is one aspect of this present dialogue.

I have every confidence that if Father David chooses to develop his statement that "the traditions of the Church are not the Life itself" that in the end, we will see that he agrees that "the traditions of the Church are the Life itself." But, possibly the ramifications of this are now coming into view a little better for some.

And, I think, I will take a break here now for the rest of the day, to see which way this discussion goes (as well as to revaluate my take on this whole thing because this is a confusing thing). But, even though this may seem like a trivial thing to some, I really feel we are onto something here as it relates to both linguistics and understanding!

Thanks again Father for the blessing that you provide to Monachos.net.

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Rick,

Well I still don't see how what is being said is antithetical. Both statements include the understanding that it is not the traditions in and for themselves which is the life of the Church. Rather it is only Tradition as it is an expression of the Holy Spirit that is the very life of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Rick,

Well I still don't see how what is being said is antithetical. Both statements include the understanding that it is not the traditions in and for themselves which is the life of the Church. Rather it is only Tradition as it is an expression of the Holy Spirit that is the very life of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael



Dear Fr. Raphael,

This present conversation that we are in reminds me of two others that you and I have had in the past.

There is a difference here though. In the other two conversations you could understand what I was saying; but, I couldn't understand what you were saying; however, here, today, it seems that while again, I cannot follow you, this time you don't see what I am saying.

But, I bring the other two conversations up because, I made an extra effort to understand what you were saying in these and I was rewarded in a huge way for this. And, in both of these conversations you went the extra mile for me. One of these was in this thread, where you patiently allowed me to take apart what you had said, and examine each piece, and then put it back together. And, the other was in the An American Orthodoxy? thread, when you talked about waking up and hearing the story on the radio next to your bed about the bulimic girl. Do you remember that one? You spoke of a cure that included the allowance for a "radical freedom" in the ones that we reach out to through mission and evangelism, and you spoke of a compassion that we are to show, just as Christ did. You emphasized the compassion aspect in this post over a heavy handed approach. This was one of the most beautiful things I have ever read here on monachos--I think it came straight from your heart that morning.

But, the point here is, I am going to have to ask you to please go the extra mile here with me on this one again. And, hopefully, there will be another pot of gold at the end of this one too! What I mean is . . . I have spent some time today, going back over Fr. David's post to Celinda about the books that she was reading. And, I have been looking at what he is saying there, which really does include some super stuff from my point of view. I even sent him some feedback on that post thanking him for it and indicating that it was a real help to me personally the day he posted it. I appreciate very much a lot of what he has said there, and I may be forced to reprint it and go back over it here in order to lift out what was said and put it back up for discussion here . . . but now I'm getting ahead again with this.

So, back to you and I here . . . I see you have made a move to Tradition and traditions. You have brought the plural and lower case into this. And, as I compare this with Father David's post, as he uses the lower case and the plural as well, and I see the equating there to Truth and Person and Christ and Life, no matter how I try to spin it around, I cannot see how you cannot see that the two statements that I keep placing side by side are not antithetical.

So, I am wondering if you would be willing to go the extra mile here, once again, and help the likes of me to understand:

1.) What you mean when you say "Tradition" as it relates to the Life of the Church which is Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit of God.

and:

2.) What you mean when you say "traditions" as it relates to the Life of the Church which is Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit of God.

If you will be so gracious to do this, as you have in the past by going the extra mile, then I think we can move forward here as in the past, and hopefully, find another "doorway" not unlike the one you wrote about just after the first of the year, after hearing the story of the girl who needed some help.

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

A Christ-like Approach

Dear All,

Well, now I have gone and got myself all sentimental here with the above trip down memory lane, and I am moved to reprint the meat and potatoes of the post, by Fr. R., that I spoke of above. If at all possible, sit down with a nice cup of something with this one, you have my double your money back guarantee that you will not be disappointed with this gift (which is not without relevance to this thread).

In Christ,
Rick




Originally Posted by fr_r_v

As I often do, early this morning, before arising from sleep I turned on my bedside radio and listened to CBC Overnight which plays international radio from 1- 5:30am. As it turned out when I began listening, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) was on and there was a program about a teenage girl who had been suffering from bulemia.

Since the girl herself spoke the description was very moving of what it is like to suffer through such a dreadful affliction. But a couple of things were striking from an Orthodox perspective.


[. . . ] A couple of thoughts here. The primary purpose of the Church is to offer to all humanity the Life which Christ came to bring us through His Incarnation. Of all the important things which go on in the Church all should point to this. In other words what the Church does is offer the cure to death and sin.

This cure however is offered in conditions of radical freedom. Not only - obviously- is physical compulsion rejected. But all the many subtle psychological and emotional methods which also involve compulsion we also are called to overcome in ourselves. This is so that it may be Christ Who through us stands before those who come to the Church. Without sufficient awareness of this, the risk is that we offer many wonderful and enticing things to those who come to the Church, but not the One Thing Needful, Who of course is Christ. To live then as the Church, as a parish and as individuals within the Church we must constantly take up the struggle of dying to ourselves in the many subtle forms in which this continually presents itself.

In a way though the Church will be established in whatever place we find ourselves only by like attracting like. That is; we all have our many characteristics whether it is cultural or personal. God will never destroy these but rather bring them to light. But fundamentally the Church is the place where those being healed of death & sin offer from this same cure to others also suffering the results of sin & death. Those being cured understand from their own experience how easy it is for those who need healing to get sidetracked into diversionary issues. So, compassionately but firmly those being healed draw those in need to a recognition of the essential issues. And we know that the only essential issue is that of life or death and how to choose one over the other. Anything apart from this is a betrayal of our Christian calling to others.

One of the most genuine tests for how we become part of the local Church is in how we respond to those like the teenage bulemic girl described above. Death & sin are universal but are manifested in ways particular to the place we live. In all of the afflictions our age suffers with an American could exhibit this differently from a Russian or Canadian or need different methods of cure. Then within these categories an aboriginal of western Canada will have a whole different set of afflictions from a young & trendy person from Toronto. These are local afflictions and being part of the local church is a natural outgrowth of how we learn to deal with this. In a way this is a combination of sensitivity to the suffering of those around us, ongoing enlightenment as to the nature of this suffering all anchored in our own life in Christ.

Christ's Incarnation is really the doorway for us to share with others His own manner of coming among us. Just as He enters fully into the brokenness and weakness of the human condition without this being in any way an affirmation of our sinfulness, so we too in a similar way offer this same kind of compassionate healing unto others.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

[Rick H.]

. . . or, a Christlike Approach?

Dear Celinda, Dear All,

While not wishing to quench the present conversation, I do feel that we can have two conversations here at the same time as I will now attempt to loop back to where we were last week.

And, this is prompted by a post that Owen Jones made yesterday in which he said:




What would you rather do, be angry and feel victimized by your suffering, or find humility, compassion and faith in your suffering? Why do we need a theoretical justification for the right path? The spiritual life is not a theory of anything. It has to be lived. Looking for a theory behind suffering is a way of avoiding the task of applying God's commandments in our lives. As long as we are looking for a theoretical way out, we lose out.



And, before I dive into this as it relates to a personal spiritual practice, I would like to just include a part of Andreas's response to this as a bonus to the reader of this thread:




I see my failure as a Christian in the extent to which I do not accept the sufferings in my life but accuse everybody from God downwards, and seek consolation in self-pity and anger, and use them to justify my sins, instead of seeking true consolation which is in God.



Yes, Andreas, me too. When I find myself in this miserable state I cannot hit the floor in repentance fast enough. What a miserable condition to be a perpetual victim regardless of the justification.

But, (and at the risk of providing a cosmic irony through the very process) please allow me to bullet point what Owen has said above:


Why do we need a theoretical justification for the right path?
The spiritual life is not a theory of anything. It has to be lived.
Looking for a theory behind suffering is a way of avoiding the task of applying God's commandments in our lives.
As long as we are looking for a theoretical way out, we lose out.And, while it may not be apparent here in this post, I cannot express how much what Owen has said has completely dominated my thoughts in the past twenty-four hours! I honestly feel that I could go 30 pages right now on just these four bullet points, before the day is over. So, since this is the case, it occurs to me now to just post this one as is.

Hopefully, for any who may see the value in what is said in these four points, you will just let this soak in for a bit. As, for me, I will try to turn the burner down a bit so that I might be able to move forward in a coherent way with this. But, from my point of view, what is said here is HUGE! And, I will try to come back to this later today, God willing, and be more specific about why I say this.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Dear Marie and 'Learner,' I would be honored if you would keep an eye on this one as it develops too. Dear Maria, this one is not without great meaning to the COTDL thread as well.

[Rick H.]

A Philosophy of Christian Living?

Dear All,

In the post above, one can see the work/thinking of Owen Jones in context. Now I would like to take these same principles that Owen has laid down as they relate to suffering, and apply them to a personal spiritual practice, and 'The Contemplative Life', in the following:




Why do we need a theoretical justification for the right path?

The spiritual life is not a theory of anything. It has to be 'lived.'

Looking for a theory behind our personal spiritual practice can be a way of avoiding the task of application/practice itself.

As long as we are looking for a theoretical justification for our personal spiritual practice, we lose out.



And, now, I don't want anyone to "blow a gasket" here, but I am getting ready to quote Aldous Huxley's, "The Perennial Philosophy" from chapter one, "That Art Thou." There is a very helpful piece in this chapter that will speed up the development of this present discussion of the Christian Path and 'The Contemplative Life' of the individual Christian. So, with one final disclaimer that this thread is for those who are willing to hear and think about what is being said, as it relates to the Great Orthodox Catholic Tradition, we read in the following:




In studying the Perennial Philosophy we can begin either at the bottom, with practice and morality; or at the top, with a consideration of metaphysical truths; or finally, in the middle, at the focal point where mind and matter, action and thought have their meeting place in human psychology.

The lower gate is that preferred by strictly practical teachers--men who, like Gautama Buddha, have no use for speculation and whose primary concern is to put out in men's hearts the hideous fires of greed, resentment, and infatuation. Through the upper gate go those whose vocation it is to think and speculate--the born philosophers and theologians. The middle gate gives entrance to the exponents of what has been called "spiritual religion"--the devout contemplatives of India, the Sufis of Islam, the Catholic mystics of the later Middle Ages, and in the Protestant tradition, such men as Denk and Franck and Castellio, as Everard and John Smith and the firs Quakers and William Law.



And, I share these three gates/approaches because I have wrestled with the theory behind these three, and I have tried to determine the primacy of one over the other two approaches for many-many years now with no success whatsoever.

As, I have tried to understand, by all means at my disposal, so that I could take a stand, and be 100% genuine/sincere in "my" approach/PATH which is based on a rock solid "theoretical justification" (which can be pointed to and articulated in both big picture and in the minutia), in the end, after much labor, I stand here today with nothing to present when it comes right down to it. In reality, regarding anything even remotely conclusive in the way of a "theoretical justification," as the expression goes, "I got nothing."

And, I'm a little tired this evening, and I'm not sure if this is coming across the way I mean it to or not. But, again, as it relates to a "theoretical justification" for a personal spiritual practice, as the means for union with God, and The Contemplative Life, I got nothing. Nothing to teach my wife or anyone with confidence, nothing concrete to pass along to my daughters, nothing to apply with full confidence in my own life that I can support with a "theoretical justification."

So, Celinda, if you are reading this . . . this is why I said your crystal ball needed a tune-up, but that you were in the right ball park. This type of search that I have been on, and I know I am not the only one, has nothing to do with looking for "sure fire methods;" but it has everything to do with desiring to be genuine and sincere in one's Christian approach/path to Yahweh, the God of Abraham and Isaac. And, this is why I have a high level of interest in such things as The Contemplation of the Divine Logos . . . Logos/logoi, because what I am continuing to learn in the Orthodox Tradition represents what I have always believed. And, to have a "theoretical justification" like the COTDL or the Logos/logoi that can be pointed to and appealed to in the Christian Tradition provides a part of this very thing that I have been seeking for so many years, a thing that brings credibility, so to say. And, a thing that can be pointed to that moves one beyond the place of possibly hypocrisy and to a place of authenticity in his/her personal spiritual practice and contemplative lifestyle. But, we cannot go very deep with such a thing as the COTDL to date even with all the firepower that is in this community. But, that is another story . . .

But, to move beyond all of this that I have just shared, from my personal experience, the point is according to Owen Jones way of knowing/being, regarding all of this search and desire and striving for a "theoretical justification" of either one's personal spiritual practice, or such things as determining the necessity of or the primacy of things like the above "three gates". . . WHO NEEDS IT?

And, as is also implied above, as it regards the searching itself for a "theoretical justification" it creates an obstacle which prevents one from moving forward in any capacity, and as is said above, who continues this search/looking is the same one who loses out, so yes, WHO NEEDS THAT?

And, as we come full circle here, and consider that "The spiritual life is not a theory of anything. It has to be 'lived.' " We realize that we have been here in this place ten thousand times before, in a great state of frustration to be back from our journey empty handed once again, with no profit realized whatsoever. Because this knowledge that IT has to be lived, was the point that has driven us to go in search of a "theoretical justification" for "A Philosophy of Christian Living" so many-many times before--as we considered the practical way (the lower gate), the spiritual way (the middle gate), and the metaphysical way (the upper gate).

Which way sounds good to you? They all sound good to me.

And, I'm getting too tired now to continue with this this evening; but, possibly you see where I am going with this? And I am allowing much room for the fact that as I am coming back around full circle on this 'Journey' I am still "empty handed," I have no "theoretical justification" for my personal spiritual practice or the Contemplative Life that I feel springs forth from this practice by means of the Grace of God, and in this sense, I 'still have nothing' to point to that I can justify theoretically for my wife or daughters or anyone else, and in this sense have no coherent philosophy of Christian living that can be systematized in any shape or form. But, much like the character in Thompson's, "Hound of Heaven," when he just stopped and considered what was being said as it relates to a pursuing of the Pursuer, there was a real place of revelation/discovery. And, back to the here and now, the preacher of the futility of trying to 'determine' such things as a 'determination' of a "theoretical justification" of for any branch of theology has just realized that he has been guilty of not practicing what he preaches especially as it regards 'the spiritual life,' as Owen has said.

And, as we come full circle this time . . . the revelation that we do not need a theoretical justification for "the spiritual life" places in hand exactly what we need, and for the first time, even though the hands are still completely empty, in the End, the Journey has been most profitable/fruitful.

God bless you Owen. To God is the Glory . . .

In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

I'm sorry to see mention of Buddhism. We must all be wary of accommodating ideas from outside our Orthodox Tradition, most especially from Buddhism. Buddhism: involves no belief in God; does not accept divine revelation; sees no need for divine redemption ('a great fallacy' according to one Buddhist source); sees no place for a saviour; does not accept the need for sacraments; teaches that man can help himself by his own efforts. Buddhism is spiritual suicide. The Living God is not in it and it is delusion c.f. Archimandrite Sophrony, 'His Life is Mine', pp 115-116. Has not the path of the Christian been set before us by God Himself, by Jesus Christ, and have not Spirit-bearing elders of our Orthodox Tradition, by their experience, not by any philosophy, illuminated our way along that path?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Buddhism, sufism, various meditation philosophies - these are tempting approaches for comparison for too many people. Because they share some outward forms with Christian ascetical prayer, people feel there must be a kind of correlation. Books have been written on this.

I see only danger in these approaches.

At the centre of Christian prayer is the experience of a person: the incarnate Son of the Father. Prayer is not an emptiness or a transcendence, it is the Spirit of the Father bringing one into encounter with the Son. At the heart of ascetical prayer is a relationship.

The gateway into heresy is often concealed precisely behind borders that look familiar, but which conceal traps.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew, Dear Andreas, Dear Monachos.Net Community,

I think I am going to institute a new rule for myself and not make any posts after midnight. I think this is the third time that I have tried making a late night post, and each time it was 'tears before bedtime' as is said across the big pond. I reread my post just now, and I can see how it may be interpreted as it has. Of course you are correct with what you have said Matthew, and if you have read my post as I think you have Andreas, then I can see why you are sorry to see the mention of the word. I think there is possibly a dynamic at work here that I am unfamiliar with. So once again, I find myself in the position of a 'learner.'

Where I come from (with the exception of the American Fundamentalism realm, and its Puritan influence -- where just about everything is considered evil), we use many devices to help describe the concepts that we are working our way through. Granted, this is more of an academic approach, namely one of Christian academia (viz. Evangelical seminaries), and this could be making a difference here. But, in the environment in which I was trained, it would be considered odd that there would be any form of limiting of discussion in any area as one attempts to make his points, and develop his concepts. For example, if I would want to use a quote from either Aristotle or Buddha to help make a point, or to help develop a point, this would not be offensive in any way. But, I can see that in some Orthodox realms to even use a word like Buddha can cause some people a lot of grief. Or, possibly, it was my post that could have been interpreted as if I was offering such things as either Buddhism or Roman Catholicism or even the Quaker faith as a viable option?

I don't' know. I tell you what, instead of me making another run at outlining the three gates (which I think we see promoted by various groups in all religions), possibly, the community here, in addition to you Matthew and you Andreas, can help me to understand why for example out of all the religions and faiths that were mentioned, there was such a reaction to the word Buddha? I have seen this here before in this thread and, honestly this confuses me. Some of my Evangelical friends that read this thread have noticed this too, and they think it is very odd. They have asked me why this is the case in Orthodoxy, and I have told them that I don't know.

So, I would like to put the present conversation(s) on hold here, even though I am very excited about both of these, and I would like to ask why is this the case in Orthodoxy? Why can I speak of Aristotle and Plato all day long with no objection, and I can mention the other faith traditions above, but if I mention Buddha, or it seems as well the Sufi's, it seems to cause some grief? If I would mention the Bahai faith, or Kabbalah in order to make a point, would this draw the same reaction?

Thanks very much for any who may be willing to help educate me, a "new" Orthodox, here on this. Let's get the Monachos.net community fired up on this one, and let's figure this out. Is it like this in all branches of Orthodoxy? I haven't run into this problem in my local Greek Orthodox church. What about you John? Is it like this in the Oriental Orthodox Church?

This is a good opportunity here, let's take advantage of this.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Rick and others,

I must admit at the outset that I haven't read a great deal of this thread, so there may be some 'back-conversation' that I've missed.

But on your question as to why Buddhism in particular, out of the various traditions you mentioned, might have provoked a more immediate reaction:

My impulse is to say that this is because too regularly, Buddhism is raised as a kind of 'associate' to Orthodox contemplation, given its focus on meditation (which many people incorrectly conflate with contemplation), ascetical rigour, etc. Especially in this latter regard, some of the outward forms espoused in various Buddhist techniques -- such as sitting still, quieting the mind, sometimes controlling one's breathing -- have outward similarities to certain Orthodox ascetical practices. For these reasons (amongst others), many people are keen to stress that there is a way for these traditions to work together or complement one another.

So perhaps the reaction is in response to this all-too-pervasive attention.

Fundamentally, outward forms of ascetical practice only have meaning in their relation to their aim and purpose. The fact that various traditions might talk about stilling the mind is, in smoe sense, irrelevant. What matters is why, and the 'how' only has significance in light of that. In Christianity one stills one's mind into the quietude of encounter with the living person of Christ. One is not simply 'being still'. One seeks a calming of the passions in order to be conformed to the image of Christ by the presence of the Holy Spirit. One does not seek such freedom for the purpose of detachment from being. This is simple heresy.

The danger comes in attempting to take up 'the helpful bits' of other external practices, in some attempt to incorporate them into an Orthodox ascesis. But all tools are tools crafted for a purpose; and the purpose of the ascetical tools of Buddhism could not be more antithetical to that of the Christian way.

This is why the fathers say that it is better to 'stop up one's ears' to the sayings of other religions, to 'cover one's eyes': so that all that is seen and heard is the way of Christ, and this way becomes that which transfigures our thought and action. It is more than ample of itself.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew S wrote:



Fundamentally, outward forms of ascetical practice only have meaning in their relation to their aim and purpose. The fact that various traditions might talk about stilling the mind is, in smoe sense, irrelevant. What matters is why, and the 'how' only has significance in light of that. In Christianity one stills one's mind into the quietude of encounter with the living person of Christ. One is not simply 'being still'. One seeks a calming of the passions in order to be conformed to the image of Christ by the presence of the Holy Spirit. One does not seek such freedom for the purpose of detachment from being. This is simple heresy.

Perhaps the following from St Gregory Palamas' Homily 53 On the Entry of the Mother of God into the Holy of Holies is helpful.

St Gregory writes:


“It is absolutely impossible, however, to truly encounter God unless, in addition to being cleansed, we go outside, or rather, beyond ourselves, leaving behind everything perceptible to our senses, together with our ability to perceive, and being lifted up above thoughts, reason, knowledge and even mind itself, and wholly given over to the energy of spiritual perception, which Solomon calls divine awareness (Prov 1:7 LXX), we attain to that unknowing which lies beyond knowledge, that is to say, above every kind of much-vaunted philosophy, even though the purpose of the most excellent part of philosophy is knowledge.”

One could almost interpret these words in a Buddhist sense if one didn't pay close attention to the aim and purpose (the last two are Matthew's words) of what is being said.

First off the aim is truly ascetic in an Orthodox sense so that by going beyond ourselves we mean to be cleansed of the sensual and selfish. Once we have this in mind we see that what follows, to be "above thoughts, reason, knowledge and even mind itself", is not a mechanical/psychological method to take us beyond being but rather one more aspect of ascetic selflessness. The purpose then is to bring us before Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

Dear Matthew, Dear Andreas, Dear Monachos.Net Community,

I think I am going to institute a new rule for myself and not make any posts after midnight. In Christ,
Rick

Hear, hear! And by what means of torture should we punish you if you break your new rule? And no wheedling out of it saying that it wasn't yet midnight somewhere else on the planet! =)

They say the Chinese Water torture is pretty bad. But I don't know how it works. Giving me water to drink when I really want tea, would be torture to me...

Which reminds me of something I said to my dearest protestant friend who was expressing shock at my decision to become orthodox - he asked me if there was anything he could do or say to convince me to return. I said to him: My dearest brother, I have found the source of Living Water, and you wish to offer me a drink from your cistern? (Warning: NOT the approach to use if you're not sure how strong your friendship is.)

There is some bit of truth in every religion and culture. That's what holds things together. But like water from a cistern, it barely keeps you alive and it's not healthy. Sure you can filter all the garbage out and find some water... but is it worth it? The more garbage there is to filter out, the sooner the filters will get clogged up. Personally, I've got enough sins of my own and protestant garbage besides, that continually clog up my filters. So, I'm outta here. I'll just pop in to see if Rick obeys his own rule! =) If you don't, I'll have to find a way of making you drink water instead of coffee...

In Christ,

Mary.

PS: My brother with the cistern, is still my friend =)

[Owen Jones]

I look at the distinction between Christianity and Buddhism a bit differently. On the practical level, it is my understanding that for the Buddhist, suffering is an illusion. For the Christian, suffering is very real, and in the conscious faith of a Christian, the means of our transfiguration. Big difference. I think that the uniqueness of Christianity is not so much that the object of our faith is a person, since in Buddhism, the Buddha is both a person and a principle, and he becomes the incarnation, so to speak, of wisdom. But the difference lies in the type of person/creature we are to become. We are to become Christ/like just as the Buddhist becomes Buddha/like, but in Christ we find a dramatically different and unique response to suffering. The saint, therefore, is someone who suffers differently. In the Gospels we find that the blind man suffers so that God's grace can be manifest, and not because of a tit for tat.

Look, there are only a limited number of possible responses to suffering, which is a universal constant. All human beings, and all creatures suffer. A woman suffers giving birth. We all suffer from the degradation of old age and approaching death. We all suffer injustices, and we suffer just as much, if not more, when we cause injustice. So the difference is in the response. The easy way is to see suffering as a tit for tat. Someone sinned so therefore I am suffering. Maybe it was me and what goes around comes around. Or maybe I am suffering for something my parents did wrong. Or maybe the Hindu is born poor in punishment for something his ancestor did wrong, and as a result, he will be re-incarnated as a cockroach.

But in Christ, we suffer for no good reason, not as a tit for tat, not for the purpose of evening the score, but so that we can be like Christ Himself who suffered for no good reason. This is very well laid out in contemporary terms by Matthew the Poor in his collection of writings on the liturgy published as The Communion of Love. Or we can turn to Solzenhitsyn's treatment of his own conversion experience in the second volume of Gulag Archipelago. Or, for a somewhat eclectic view, take a close look at An Interrupted Life: The Diaries of Etty Hillesum. Sometimes the Biblical message becomes opaque without the benefit of contemporary examples.

[Celinda Grace]

St. Isaac of Ninevah

Begin valiently every work of virtue...In the course of your journey do not doubt in your heart the hope of God's grace lest you toil in vain and the labor of your whole work be a burden for you. But believe in your heart that God is merciful and that He gives grace to those who seek Him, not according to our work but according to the love of our souls, and to our faith in Him. "As you have believed so it will be to you." Matt 8:13

[Celinda Grace]

But in Christ, we suffer for no good reason, not as a tit for tat, not for the purpose of evening the score, but so that we can be like Christ Himself who suffered for no good reason

I am very hesitant to question Seraphim Owen, but I see suffering as being for a very good reason. Suffering itself is redemptive. Isn't it the message of the ascetic path that suffering brings the vision of God? Even Christ was made perfect through His sufferings Heb 2:10 and so to are we.


Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. Rom 8:17

St. Isaac of Nineveh, On Ascetical Life

"For without temptations God's providence is not perceived, and familiarity with Him is not aquired, and wisdom of spirit is not learned and the love of God is not rooted in the soul. Before being tempted one prays to God as a stranger. But when one has entered into tribulations because of his love and not undergone change, then...he is considered God's housemate and friend."

"Therefore He commands us that insofar as possible one should not willfully let oneself fall into temptation. And not only this, but also, you should pray earnestly that you not be found in temptation by chance, if it is possible to please God without temptation. But if it is necessary on account of great virtue that temptations assail, even the most terrible, and if only when one accepts them is it possible to achieve virtue, in this case it is not right for us to be partial to ourselves or to anyone. Not even because of fear may you abandon that great event upon which hangs the life of your soul."


"Why do we need a theoretical justification for the right path? " Because we need something to keep us going in our blindness when things get tough or boring. When we can't see God, nor see His purposes in reality we need some sensible reason for what we do.


Ultmately the only 'theoretical justification' that is going to meet our deepest need is the one Job received. In the face of the senselessness of suffering suddenly all the theoretical justifications made no sense any more. Job's friends had no answers to comfort him just as even the best theology can never provide ultimate answers. But by waiting in hope, and faith Job received the answer He was looking for. "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6

[Rick H.]

"A Place of Blessing"

Dear Celinda, Dear Everyone,

I just read your last two posts and have extracted the following two block quotes from them, first from St. Isaac of Ninevah:





Begin valiently every work of virtue... In the course of your journey do not doubt in your heart the hope of God's grace lest you toil in vain and the labor of your whole work be a burden for you. But believe in your heart that God is merciful and that He gives grace to those who seek Him, not according to our work but according to the love of our souls, and to our faith in Him. "As you have believed so it will be to you." Mat 8:13



And, the second one from you, and the Hebrew Scriptures:




Ultimately the only 'theoretical justification' that is going to meet our deepest need is the one Job received. In the face of the senselessness of suffering suddenly all the theoretical justifications made no sense any more. Job's friends had no answers to comfort him just as even the best theology can never provide ultimate answers. But by waiting in hope, and faith Job received the answer He was looking for. "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6



And, just before I read your two posts here, I finished reading a PM from someone who sent me an original poem that served as a kind of sermon, the good kind, as a 'vehicle' of God's Grace--a true blessing. And, before that, during the day today, I have received PM's from people reaching out in such a beautiful way, and in such a touching way that I am so overwhelmed with the Spirit of God's Love right now, and this does not take into account yesterday, and the day before, come to think of it where a similar thing took place though some such as one of my two guardian angels (even if she does speak of water torture at times) and via my very humorous friend who made sure that I signed off by midnight last night with just a few minutes to go :)

But, while still attempting to settle in to my new abode, courtesy of Owen Jones's posts, and while still waiting to digest fully the supreme wisdom of Matthew and Fr. R. that has been shown here in this thread yesterday and today, now you show up to put the icing on the cake for dessert[!] . . . and now it is like a switch has been "flicked," so to say.

So, I think what I am trying to do through all of this 'sappy babbling' is to say thank you to you, and the others.

I feel humbled and compelled to attempt to show/express my gratitude to the people of Monachos.net. I'm not sure how well I am accomplishing my goal here, but you people know who you are, and please accept my humble gratitude for playing your part, as 'Learner' used to say.

And, it occurs to me, right now anyway, that if I could, I would change the name of this website. I would change it from Monachos.net (even though this *is* a perfect name for US), to Berachah.Net.

In Hebrew, Berachah means "a place of blessing."

Yes, a place of blessing for God's Glory In Christ!

In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Rick H.]

From "The Dead Poet's Society" to "A Beautiful Mind"

Dear Matthew,

Thank you very much for your gracious response a few days ago. It was extremely helpful. You took something that was very confusing for me and made it very simple. In fact, here in the states, we have an office supply store chain, coast to coast, named "Staples." They run commercials showing how easy they can make 'quick work' of seemingly difficult tasks for companies and individuals. And, in these commercials, after they solve one's dilemma quickly, the person who needed help says, "Well, that was easy!" From this they started advertising an "easy button" which is about a 6" round and 2" thick red button that sits on one's desk. It sells for about $6.00 and it runs on batteries, and when you push it, a man's voice is heard to say "THAT was easy!" All this to say, after reading your last post the "easy button" was promptly sounded in my home :)

With great speed, when I read the following:




But on your question as to why Buddhism in particular, out of the various traditions you mentioned, might have provoked a more immediate reaction:

My impulse is to say that this is because too regularly, Buddhism is raised as a kind of 'associate' to , Orthodox contemplation, given its focus on meditation (which many people incorrectly conflate with contemplation), ascetical rigour, etc. Especially in this latter regard, some of the outward forms espoused in various Buddhist techniques -- such as sitting still, quieting the mind, sometimes controlling one's breathing -- have outward similarities to certain Orthodox ascetical practices. For these reasons (amongst others), many people are keen to stress that there is a way for these traditions to work together or complement one another.

So perhaps the reaction is in response to this all-too-pervasive attention.



I can both 'understand' this issue, and 'relate' it to other "sensitive issues" with other groups that I have been a part of in the past. And, no need for me to take this any further, anyone who can read and understands the meaning of the term "sensitive issue" knows what is being said here. Thanks for this understanding.

Now, I guess the thing to try to figure out is how to handle this in the future. On one hand, and for example, when I am around people that I know are "King James Bible believing Fundamentalists" who believe that the King James Bible of 1611 (which none of them use) is the 'only' and inspired Version of the Holy Word of God, you absolutely cannot get me to say a word about the transmission and translation of the Holy Scriptures even if you bribe me with a lifetime supply of Starbucks (Celinda!). I would rather go shopping with my wife at the mall for an entire week than spend one hour in such a conversation as the KJV only debate! Well, okay you get the picture :)

But, on the other hand, if no one attempts to engage some of these folks what chance do they have of moving past this shortsighted position that is again, here, driven by our old nemesis, 'fear,' which can really cause a great deal of misery. So, possibly it is not as much of a clear cut issue as it relates to how to deal with some individuals that are "very sensitive" to such things as either the mere mention of the word "Buddhism," or anything that may cast suspicion on even the most remote possibility that the KJV is not the inspired Version.

Possibly, as it relates to this way of knowing/being, that we have just explored, for some, there are answers to be found in the movie, "The Dead Poet's Society." Or, maybe for some others, there are some answers to be found in the movie about John Nash, in "A Beautiful Mind."

But, as it relates to me at the present, I have no more questions about this Matthew, and once again, as a most skillful 'heart' surgeon, you have made quick work of a subject that was a tough one for me. What a blessing--what a place of blessing!

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

PS For any interested, I will share a piece from the movie mentioned above. This is spoken by the character who plays John Nash at the very End of the movie:

"I've always believed in numbers and equations and logics that lead to reason. And after a lifetime of such pursuits, I ask what truly is logic and who decides reason?

My quest has taken me through the physical and the metaphysical, the delusional and back. And, I have made the most important discovery of my career, the most important discovery of my life--that it is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logical reasons can be found."

[Celinda Grace]

St. Isaac of Ninevah


The soul in which there is a portion of the Spirit, when it hears something with a spiritual power hidden in it, ardently draws out the story.

[Theophrastus]

I don't' know. I tell you what, instead of me making another run at outlining the three gates (which I think we see promoted by various groups in all religions), possibly, the community here, in addition to you Matthew and you Andreas, can help me to understand why for example out of all the religions and faiths that were mentioned, there was such a reaction to the word Buddha? I have seen this here before in this thread and, honestly this confuses me. Some of my Evangelical friends that read this thread have noticed this too, and they think it is very odd. They have asked me why this is the case in Orthodoxy, and I have told them that I don't know.

So, I would like to put the present conversation(s) on hold here, even though I am very excited about both of these, and I would like to ask why is this the case in Orthodoxy? Why can I speak of Aristotle and Plato all day long with no objection, and I can mention the other faith traditions above, but if I mention Buddha, or it seems as well the Sufi's, it seems to cause some grief? If I would mention the Bahai faith, or Kabbalah in order to make a point, would this draw the same reaction?


A few thoughts might be helpful here. Among the Christian traditions, I would hazard to say that the Orthodox are the ones who have maintained a very active monastic and contemplative tradition, more so than the Latins. That observation automatically makes the Orthodox and the Buddhist "competitors", if you will -- speaking sociologically, not necessarily theologically -- in the religious marketplace of contemplative traditions. Your average Westerner is not all that contemplative; and there are many religious traditions that this said Westerner would likely find attractive, including evangelical traditions that really lack a strong contemplative or monastic basis (or lack any such basis at all). So mentioning Buddhism to the average Southern Baptist might get a 'huh?', because of the lack of a common perspective, or (at worst) intimations of idol worship.

Now, look at the Latins. Latin Catholicism has monks and nuns, and contemplatives of various sorts. But a lot of that tradition, if not totally lost, has atrophied quite a bit. That leads to two perspectives. One, exemplified by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, severely cautions Latins from dabbling in, and syncretizing with, Dharmic traditions, emphasizing the limitations of said traditions, likening them to self-indulgence (http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,1089,0,0,1,0) and selfishness (masquerading as spirituality) in general. The solution, then, is for Latins to recover the contemplative traditions that they have lost, but that's easier said than done, which leads to the second perspective among the Latins. This perspective, exemplified by the likes of Thomas Merton, recognizes that Buddhism, for instance, is not Christianity and differs from Christianity in many ways. However, the Dharmic traditions are seen as a major resource by which the Latins can get a "quick study" on how to recover their own Latin contemplative traditions. This second perspective says, in effect, "Hey! Why not learn from our Eastern brothers, since we've seem to have forgotten what it means to contemplate. Then, we can take what we've learned (the principles, the methods, not particular devotional or yogic techniques unique to the Indic traditions) and use them in our recovery of Latin contemplativity?"

The Orthodox, though, are in a different space, compared to the space inhabited by the Latins. The Orthodox never forgot contemplation, never forget real monasticism, never forget the whole process of theosis. For the Orthodox, there is no reason to learn from the Buddhists, or the Hindus; because (unlike in the Latin case) there is no huge, gaping lacuna that needs revitalization via a 2-month retreat in the Himalayas, or a year-long study in Yokohama. That's why you see Latin Catholic monks like Swami Abhishiktananda (http://www.abhishiktananda.org/) or Fr. Bede Griffiths (http://www.innerexplorations.com/catew/5.htm), start off as no different from your average Latin renunciate, and then go off to India to learn Advaita Vedanta. Advaita is 'non-dualism', similar in many ways to the idea of theosis (not identical, but similar); and since theosis is barely alive in the Latin Church, those Latins who are ready for entering into those deeper levels of contemplation really won't find much help in the Latin Church. But, by contrast, an Orthodox monk in a similar position has a much more highly developed contemplative tradition, in which he can 'theosize'. In fact, one might say that it would be more appropriate for the Latin monk to learn from his Orthodox brethren, than from Dharmic teachers. However, since traditions from Yoga and Buddhism are much more openly known and available (and since the Latins would like a way to find links between Dharma and Abraham), the Latin might find it easier simply to visit the local Yoga ashram, or Buddhist Zendo.

So, my overall impression is that, to the Latins and the contemplatively inclined Protestants, the Dharmic contemplations are like a breath of fresh air, in contrast to the excessive rationalism of scholasticism and reformed theology. But, to the Orthodoxy, it's old hat, and a non-Christian old-hat, at that, and a non-Christian old-hat that (unlike in the case of Plato or Aristotle) has not yet been "fused" into a Christian framework. In fact, some have proposed that the meeting of Abraham and Dharma will be just as profoundly earth-changing, if not more, than the meeting of Athens and Jerusalem.

In any event, those are a few things to think about.

[Mourad Mankarios]

But on your question as to why Buddhism in particular, out of the various traditions you mentioned, might have provoked a more immediate reaction:

My impulse is to say that this is because too regularly, Buddhism is raised as a kind of 'associate' to Orthodox contemplation, given its focus on meditation (which many people incorrectly conflate with contemplation), ascetical rigour, etc. Especially in this latter regard, some of the outward forms espoused in various Buddhist techniques -- such as sitting still, quieting the mind, sometimes controlling one's breathing -- have outward similarities to certain Orthodox ascetical practices. For these reasons (amongst others), many people are keen to stress that there is a way for these traditions to work together or complement one another.

So perhaps the reaction is in response to this all-too-pervasive attention.

Fundamentally, outward forms of ascetical practice only have meaning in their relation to their aim and purpose. The fact that various traditions might talk about stilling the mind is, in smoe sense, irrelevant. What matters is why, and the 'how' only has significance in light of that. In Christianity one stills one's mind into the quietude of encounter with the living person of Christ. One is not simply 'being still'. One seeks a calming of the passions in order to be conformed to the image of Christ by the presence of the Holy Spirit. One does not seek such freedom for the purpose of detachment from being. This is simple heresy.

The danger comes in attempting to take up 'the helpful bits' of other external practices, in some attempt to incorporate them into an Orthodox ascesis. But all tools are tools crafted for a purpose; and the purpose of the ascetical tools of Buddhism could not be more antithetical to that of the Christian way.

This is why the fathers say that it is better to 'stop up one's ears' to the sayings of other religions, to 'cover one's eyes': so that all that is seen and heard is the way of Christ, and this way becomes that which transfigures our thought and action. It is more than ample of itself.


Dear Prof. Steenberg,

From the above it would almost seem as though Orthodox tradition developed independently of any external influence or individuals. However, as far as I'm aware it is clear that many aspects of Orthodox tradition developed in relation to the pervading customs of the ancient times where the nascent church was still being established and all of its rites, traditions and customs were being developed.

With regards to asesis of special not