Should Orthodox Christians study other eastern religions?

[Rick H.]

On 'Cultivating' the Fruits of a Christian 'Mindfulness'


Dear All,

Thank you very much for your participation in this thread to date. This has been a very rewarding experience so far, but I am going to attempt to get us going here so that we might really begin moving to the heart of the matter. I was doing some research yesterday and ran across the article below. I have given it two quick reads and while I do not agree with everything that is said here (in fact I am inclined to attack it on some points), I think this could possibly be a spark plug in a similar way that the Fr. Aris article was for the previous A.O. thread.

In fact, since I first started here at monachos (and have become familiar with the diversity of talent/gifts of some of the ones who are here), I have always hoped for a coming/working together or a "pooling" in this monochos community of the mystical (those with monasteries and those without) and the theological and the historical and the just plain downright 'simply' indispensable (who can provide such a heavenly place of balance and harmony by 'simply' introducing such concepts/word pictures as a 'swimming pool' with a deep end and a kiddie pool :)

Like the Fr. Aris article, this is not without controversy, but I think we are all adults here:


Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

Robert A. Jonas

When Americans in the early 21st century think of meditation and other spiritual disciplines for training one’s awareness, we think of Buddhism. American Buddhist teachers have called attention to the fact that most Americans’ minds are like a tree full of jumping monkeys. In any given moment we are not really present, but rather worrying and obsessing about yesterday and tomorrow. We are distracted, multi-tasking creatures of habit who suffer by being inwardly divided. This is why there are popular Buddhist meditation centers in every American city. We are looking for relief from the chaos and violence in our own minds. Most Americans don’t know that we Christians have inherited many spiritual tools to help us break through the cloud of gnats and mosquitoes in our minds that we call obsessive thinking, worry, anxiety and habitual fear.


For example, one of the Christian Desert Fathers, the monk Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 A.D.), taught a form of hesychasm (Greek: quiet) in which one comes to see the conditioned links between thoughts and emotions, and then, through meditation and prayer, finds a deep calm called apatheia. In apatheia the mind is integrated and purified of its naturally tumultuous activity, allowing one to simply “be” in God’s presence or to pray without distraction. Monks such as Evagrius believed that virtue in one’s speech and behavior would follow freely from a mind that is emptied of distracting thoughts. Some other Christian contemplatives would describe this emptying as a kind of on-going detachment from chaotic thoughts. It’s not that thinking goes away--sometimes our thoughts may bring blessings or healings!--but that we experience an inward spaciousness so that we are not so caught up in our own thoughts and worries. When we have this kind of detachment, we are less likely to mistake our thoughts and opinions for our present reality.

The methods by which one trains and purifies the mind were codified by Evagrius’s student, St. John Cassian (360-435) in his Conferences, and taken up by St. Benedict, Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Symeon the New Theologian, the German friar Meister Eckhart, the anonymous author of the medieval Cloud of Unknowing, St. John of the Cross and, most famously, in the works of 20th century’s Thomas Merton.

In Philippians (2:5ff), St. Paul writes that Jesus “emptied himself ” (Greek: kenosis), taking the form of a servant. Jesus’s many acts of service and healing did not come from a mind that was thinking and analyzing about what to do or say, but rather from a mind that had emptied itself into God. Jesus’s mind was emptied of self-reference and the centripetal force of merely personal preference. In his “emptiness,” God’s infinite love could shine through Jesus’s human form unencumbered. Through him, the invisible could become visible. In this way, the purified Christian mind is analogous to Tibetan Buddhist emptiness and to Zen’s “no-thought-ness” (Jap. munen). Visible, tangible compassion arises out of nothing, out of the emptiness that circulates in God. This spiritual emptiness is not a shallow nihilism, a nonchalant rejection of ultimate meaning, but rather a deep focused detachment of mind and heart that has been shaped within a profound ethical context.

The medieval Dominican friar Meister Eckhart taught that detachment (emptying ourselves) from every self-centered affinity and fear is such an important spiritual practice that he, with tongue in cheek, put it above love. Even our ideas about God can lead us away from God, so we must walk lightly among them too. As he says,

We ought not to have or let ourselves be satisfied with the God we have thought of, for when the thought slips the mind, that god slips with it. [This discipline] requires effort and love, a careful cultivation of the spiritual life, and a watchful, honest, active oversight of all one's mental attitudes toward things and people. It is not to be learned by world-flight, running away from things, turning solitary and going apart from the world. Rather, one must learn an inner solitude, wherever or with whomsoever he may be. (Raymond Bernard Blakney, tr. & ed. Meister Eckhart: A Modern Translation. New York: Harper & Bros., 1941, p. 9.)
One shouldn’t forget that Eckhart was steeped in the Gospels and living in Christian community when he wrote this. He may not have been thinking about God, but he was continuously surrounded by and digesting the words, images and gestures of the Christian life. Still, he was convinced that God is greater than any picture or feeling about God. Trusting in God’s invisible presence one’s mind comes to a still point of presence he called Gelassenheit, a complete letting-be.

From the Desert Fathers and from the Greek philosophers before them, Eckhart inherited the insight that our eyes must be without any color in order to be able to register all colors. Dwelling in this detachment from our personal ideas about reality, we come to a consciousness that St. Paul described when he declared, “it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). Christ has colorless eyes. And when St. Paul said that “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16) he meant all of us who follow the path into God’s Love. We are not Jesus, but we are like him. We too can have the “empty” or “detached” mind and heart of Christ that sees all colors and registers all suffering and joy. Eckhart describes the Christ-mind’s way of knowing as “daybreak knowledge” in which all things are perceived without distinction as coming forth from, and going to, the light of God.

Similarly, in the 16th century, St. John of the Cross counsels that after, and in the midst of, our liturgies, hymns and discursive prayers, we Christians must also occasionally enter a dark night of the senses and soul, emptying ourselves of our self-centered preferences and ideas about God and everything else. Jesus modeled this discipline of self-emptying love for us, but he did not do it instead of us. We ourselves need to clear our minds of self-centered and habitual thinking. We must become inwardly detached in an ambience of love that continuously connects us to others and to creation. Our contemplative tradition tells us that when we open ourselves to the Divine movement within, the Holy Spirit will help us do this work. We do the work of creating a space within us for God, and then trust that the Holy Spirit will do the work in us: as we flow out of ourselves, the Holy Spirit flows in.

Christian contemplatives and mystics hold up the possibility of unity with God in our minds and hearts. They tell us that we are coming close to this unity when we empty ourselves of all the labels we paste onto others and our own experience. St. John of the Cross tells us that this emptying is a kind of “darkening” whereby we become naked before God and with God. Paradoxically, it is a darkening that brings Light. In this dark night of the mind the invisible God of love transforms us, freeing us from our cocoons of fear, anxiety and blame. John’s contemporary, St. Ignatius of Loyola, called this Christian practice Indiferencia or “holy indifference”. In this view, one stops trying to control God. One trains one’s mind to seek God in all things evenly, to have no personal preference for where God will show up. This practice of emptying is quite radical for some contemplatives like Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross. They even counsel us to let go of our “religious” and “spiritual” thoughts about God. So, Eckhart says, sometimes we must let go of God, for God’s sake.

[Andreas Moran]

As to the article, I would not draw any analogies between Christian mysticism and Buddhist practices - Buddhism is completely antithetical to Christianity. I'm also not sure I would place all Christian mysticism together, either. The practices of John of the Cross and Ignatius Loyola are different in character (more given to permitting a role for the imagination) than Orthodox prayer and contemplation. Immediately one steps outside Orthodoxy, one will start to find error; the further one goes outside Orthodoxy, the further the degree of error.

[Maria Mahoney]

It's just that no one seems to mention these, and I wonder why.


Dear Andreas,

They are mentioned all over Monachos.... that was one reason I signed up!

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Before one begins implementing the breathing practices with the Jesus Prayer, one MUST consult with their Spiritual Father. It is my understanding that implementing the Heyschast practices with the prayer, if not done under the guidance of a Spiritual Father who has expereince with this practice can be more harmful than good. This I received from several priests and a monastic.

Don't mean to be alarming, but one must proceed with care and leading as one journey's deeper into prayer.

Forgive me, a sinner.

Athanasia

I was tremendously disturbed by Mr. Henry's post # 53. First, what is this pooling you are seeking? A supposed pooling of the 'mystical' (monastics) and the theological - what/where is this division and even a definition of such a non-Orthodox term?

The inclusion of the non-article by R. Jonas, is particularly inappropriate and offensive. Where even once is the crucial word REPENTANCE stated.

Here I draw attention to Andreas' extremely correct post #54.

After over 35 years of Orthodox Christian monastic life I have never heard of an Orthodox Christian system similiar to Hindu/Buddhist Chakras, nor any reason why such a parallel should be drawn or utililized. (Though many Roman Catholic contemplatives love to flounder in this delusion.)

The work of R. Jonas is pure plani, prelest, delusion, and must be firmly stated as such.

That Mr. Henry would propose this for our contemplation, especially now, as this evening we will hear the first section of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, is something that causes wonder, amazement, puzzlement and worry.

A voyage without compass, will only lead to shipwreck.

Perhaps Rick you should read Fr. Sophrony's book: St. Silouan the Athonite and Fr. Sophrony's spiritual autobiography: "We Shall See Him As He Is"

Your time would be much better spent with these two volumes than the spiritual prelest you have given us in your post #53.

[Rick H.]

I was tremendously disturbed by Mr. Henry's post . . .

The inclusion of the non-article by R. Jonas, is particularly inappropriate and offensive . . .

The work of R. Jonas is pure plani, prelest, delusion, and must be firmly stated as such.

That Mr. Henry would propose this for our contemplation . . . causes wonder, amazement, puzzlement and worry.

Your time would be much better spent with these two volumes than the spiritual prelest you have given us . . .




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:



Thank you Panos:

As much as I appreciate and learn from the theologians here on Monachos, I truly need and appreciate some one who speaks on my level. (Not an insult. An appreciation).

In love
Paul


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:




I was tremendously disturbed by Mr. Henry's post # 53. First, what is this pooling you are seeking? A supposed pooling of the 'mystical' (monastics) and the theological - what/where is this division and even a definition of such a non-Orthodox term?



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

[Andreas Moran]

Any manner of expression aside, Fr Seraphim is right. It is simply not an option for Orthodox Christians to dabble in 'spiritual' stuff outside the Church. How did Fr Sophrony keep humility when the world hailed him as a great elder? By remembrance of his dabbling in eastern mysticism, his apostacy. See what he writes in ' His Life is Mine', pp 115-116. In the tapes of his talks in the monastery (in Russian, so Lydia translates), he warns urgently against such things. Outside the Church there is only error.

Forgive me a miserable sinner,

Andreas.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Athanasia

I think that I must comment that you seem always to take Rick's words in the worst possible light. As far as I can see there is nothing offensive in Rick's words, unless you read such offense into it which is something you must deal with yourself.

Rick only stated that he disagreed with the thought that there is no difference between academic theological study and monasticism. I can't see how that can be objectionable, unless you are saying that no one should ever disagree with a monastic.

I am quite sure from my contact with Rick that he has complete and appropriate respect for all monastics and Father Seraphim in particular and I think you should assume that he has such a spirit before consistently reading offense and disrespect into his posts.

Forgive me for writing this during Lent, but I am myself having to learn not to assume that I know what someone's intent is when they post.

Peter


During this sacred, holy, most sublime period of the Fast, my heart yearns to make my very own these words:

"The end is drawing near my soul, is drawing near! But I neither care nor prepare. The time is growing short. Rise! The Judge is near at the very doors. Like a dream, like a flower, this time of life passes. Why do I bustle about in vain?"

and:

"Out of the night watching early for Thee, enlighten me..."

So clearly I see my beloved staretz, Father Sophrony, standing before the Royal Doors intoning these blessed words in Slavonic. I was so young then, "like a dream," and the majesty of his voice pierced my heart "out of the night watching..."

Now I am older in age, but what do I have to offer my King? The shame of my life, the stubborness of unrepentance, the untimely breach of His Words.

Let me here and now regain the day of Forgiveness and with a full prostration ask of all: 'forgive me, my brothers and sisters, and pray for me, for I have lost the words to pray for myself.'

[Rick H.]

"'Spiritual' Stuff:" Means, Methods, Spiritual Practices



Any manner of expression aside, Fr Seraphim is right. It is simply not an option for Orthodox Christians to dabble in 'spiritual' stuff outside the Church. How did Fr Sophrony keep humility when the world hailed him as a great elder? By remembrance of his dabbling in eastern mysticism, his apostasy. See what he writes in ' His Life is Mine', pp 115-116. In the tapes of his talks in the monastery (in Russian, so Lydia translates), he warns urgently against such things. Outside the Church there is only error.

Forgive me a miserable sinner,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Thank you very much for your post. You seem to have a knack for moving right to the heart of the matter :) Actually, when I posted the Jonas article I was not interested in talking about spiritual practices in other religions (and I'm really still not all that inclined to do this, but I am open to moving in this direction if you like). When I posted the article which I think mentioned Buddhism in the first paragraph and then provided a kind of survey of other Christian traditions/practices from there, I was hoping that it would be a "spark plug" to generate a discussion about the nuts and bolts of acceptable or maybe better yet, "genuine," Orthodox, personal spiritual practices. I guess in some ways, when we consider Eastern Orthodox spiritual practices we do see some pretty serious overlap with other Eastern religions/systems (both theistic and non-theistic). However, my intention here is to learn. In fact, if it wasn't already taken, I might consider adopting the handle "Learner" especially here. We are all learners though I guess, aren't we? This is actually one of the "seven laws of teaching" that I appreciate very much, as it relates to the "seven laws of learning." We are lifelong learners, and as we learn we teach. Or, Augustine's motto comes to mind again here, "As I learn, I write; and, as I write, I learn."

I will share with you that when I started here at monachos, I came in with some very specific goals and objectives as it relates to a project that I am working on. I started here last November in order to do some research and in this sense learn. But, I have learned some things that have surprised me here. For one thing I have learned how much I do not know about my Tradition. And, as it relates to those who I minister to at the present this has thrown things into disorder somewhat. So now, I find myself up in the air on some things so to speak and I am looking to come down now. So, this is kind of a crazy thing at the present. I am doing some research for a writing project while at the same time looking to be ministered to or educated while I am ministering to others. It has become an awkward thing. In seeking to obtain order I have become disordered if that makes any sense--but I think this is a good thing. So, let's keep going here . . . and maybe the above references in the most recent postings to other world religions can be useful here as we move forward.

On the one hand, if there is a focusing on world religions then this is not what we want at all here at monachos, it would be inappropriate, and I would not want to participate in that discussion. But, on the other hand, if we use this somewhat as a vehicle of comparison and contrast in relation to an authentic and an historic Orthodox Christian approach as it relates to the "treasury" in which the Church is the keeper, then this could be a very helpful catalyst to move to the heart of the matter. So, yes, let's move forward here in a spirit of open and honest conversation as we seek to move closer to the heart of the matter.

Yes, Andreas, as you say "spiritual stuff," what is the difference between the spiritual 'stuff' of other religions and the Religion? And, if anyone copies this last sentence to respond please copy this whole paragraph as well :) What is the difference between when an Indian gazes at the sky as a method of practice hoping for illumination and when an Orthodox gazes at the sky when he is directed to as St. Symeon has spoke of sky gazing? And, remember please, these questions are being asked about the practice as a means or a way or a method--in this sense a true methodology. I know the difference between the theology of a Christian and the theology of a Hindu. And, I also know the difference between the theology of a Christian and the non-theology of most Buddhists. So while we cannot help but to move towards theology as we consider mysticism and mystical practices eventually, this is not the question here at the present as we consider the nuts and bolts or the mechanics of the practice itself. And, knowing neither the Orthodox or almost all (except Zen Buddhists) would allow any room for a practice for practice sake mentality. What is the difference between a typical zazen posture either on the floor or on a stool 9" from the ground and the posture that we see recommended in the Philokalia anthology which calls for both, including even the stool used in mediation which is precisely 9" from the ground? When we consider breathing and posture, when we consider even monasticism itself from which we get our liturgy and the lion's share of our Orthodox practice . . . and here it is . . . WHO determines what is evil spiritual stuff as it relates to the practices (some of which are mentioned above) which as far as technique and methodology is concerned find a perfectly parallel movement in the mechanics or the practice or the means. Using the two examples provided here, if one says sky gazing or sitting in a zen posture on the floor is evil spiritual stuff and evidence of apostasy which will eventually lead to delusion and derangement; but, another director or educator appeals to the Philokalia anthology and directs the seeker as possibly he has been directed, then who is to say? Many moons ago, I entered an independent fundamentalist King James Bible believing separatist, "Baptist Brider" (if anyone knows what that means--ouch!), local only church. Now, today, as an Orthodox Christian, I am considered an apostate of the first order by my previous brothers and sisters. Some of my evangelical friends from which I was most recently ordained (before becoming Orthodox) will still speak to me, but it is a tolerance of the one who has possibly finally lost it all the way and not a true unity. But, here WHO determines if I am an apostate or if I am deranged? Or, better yet (asked non-rhetorically of ALL), WHO determines if YOU are an apostate or if you are suffering from delusion?) And, here, I wonder if we could get some straight answers where the rubber meets the road. I appreciate it very much when someone says, "What we need is symphonia or synergy!" Because this is 1000% correct and if we ever lose sight of this, we are in for some real trouble. I hope Herman always points people in this direction here at monachos. This is something to remember and be reminded of on a regular basis. Sometimes, I think if Herman realized how much good he does here, he would get a big head and then he would be worthless. So let's not let him know about this or he will be known as Herman the Big Head instead of Herman the Simple. But, the point is WHO determines who is apostate or deranged or delusional as it relates to a personal spiritual practice, and . . . at the same time WHO says whether sky gazing or any other method of seeking union with the Divine is evil or Orthodox?

Well, that is a long paragraph isn't it Andreas? Maybe, I should have tried to become a lawyer? Or maybe not ;) As a Lecturer of Law, what do you think about this? Can this be addressed directly?

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?

Peace, Love, and Hope,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

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 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?




Yes, Andreas, as you say "spiritual stuff," what is the difference between the spiritual 'stuff' of other religions and the Religion? And, if anyone copies this last sentence to respond please copy this whole paragraph as well :) What is the difference between when an Indian gazes at the sky as a method of practice hoping for illumination and when an Orthodox gazes at the sky when he is directed to as St. Symeon has spoke of sky gazing? And, remember please, these questions are being asked about the practice as a means or a way or a method--in this sense a true methodology. I know the difference between the theology of a Christian and the theology of a Hindu. And, I also know the difference between the theology of a Christian and the non-theology of most Buddhists. So while we cannot help but to move towards theology as we consider mysticism and mystical practices eventually, this is not the question here at the present as we consider the nuts and bolts or the mechanics of the practice itself. And, knowing neither the Orthodox or almost all (except Zen Buddhists) would allow any room for a practice for practice sake mentality. What is the difference between a typical zazen posture either on the floor or on a stool 9" from the ground and the posture that we see recommended in the Philokalia anthology which calls for both, including even the stool used in mediation which is precisely 9" from the ground?



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.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


When we consider breathing and posture, when we consider even monasticism itself from which we get our liturgy and the lion's share of our Orthodox practice . . . and here it is . . . WHO determines what is evil spiritual stuff as it relates to the practices (some of which are mentioned above) which as far as technique and methodology is concerned find a perfectly parallel movement in the mechanics or the practice or the means. Using the two examples provided here, if one says sky gazing or sitting in a zen posture on the floor is evil spiritual stuff and evidence of apostasy which will eventually lead to delusion and derangement; but, another director or educator appeals to the Philokalia anthology and directs the seeker as possibly he has been directed, then who is to say? Many moons ago, I entered an independent fundamentalist King James Bible believing separatist, "Baptist Brider" (if anyone knows what that means--ouch!), local only church. Now, today, as an Orthodox Christian, I am considered an apostate of the first order by my previous brothers and sisters. Some of my evangelical friends from which I was most recently ordained (before becoming Orthodox) will still speak to me, but it is a tolerance of the one who has possibly finally lost it all the way and not a true unity. But, here WHO determines if I am an apostate or if I am deranged? Or, better yet (asked non-rhetorically of ALL), WHO determines if YOU are an apostate or if you are suffering from delusion?) And, here, I wonder if we could get some straight answers where the rubber meets the road. I appreciate it very much when someone says, "What we need is symphonia or synergy!" Because this is 1000% correct and if we ever lose sight of this, we are in for some real trouble. I hope Herman always points people in this direction here at monachos. This is something to remember and be reminded of on a regular basis. Sometimes, I think if Herman realized how much good he does here, he would get a big head and then he would be worthless. So let's not let him know about this or he will be known as Herman the Big Head instead of Herman the Simple. But, the point is WHO determines who is apostate or deranged or delusional as it relates to a personal spiritual practice, and . . . at the same time WHO says whether sky gazing or any other method of seeking union with the Divine is evil or Orthodox?

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father Raphael

Thank you for your post which describes much of my own position much better than I could.

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.

More than that, it makes of Orthodoxy something we hold fast to ourselves, turned inward and making sure we exclude all those who differ in any way from us. I am afraid that I might be in the wrong and require correction, but for me Orthodoxy is life and light, and is life in the Holy Spirit, and I cannot say that those outside the formal and visible bounds of the Church however described are not the subjects of the activity of the Holy Spirit.

For God ... wills that all men be saved.

And He was at work in me long before I found Orthodoxy, and He was at work in others long before they heard of Christ.

Of course I do not think that Hinduism is the same as Orthodoxy, far from it. But when my Hindu shopkeeper neighbour tells me that he is praying for my blessing and for blessing on the world I don't feel able to say that he is merely deluded, and I am not confident in saying that God rejects his prayers because he has not come to the fulness of the light.

I am not greatly interested in studying other religions to be illuminated by them because I believe completely that I am in the place where the light is brightest. But I do not feel able to say that all those who are striving to live according to the light granted them are not illuminated, however dimly, by the same light that has illumined me. There is only one light of truth.

Christ Himself says I am the light of the world. And this seems to me to suggest that where people outside the bounds of Eastern Orthodoxy live according to that light, as God has granted it to them, then they are in some tenuous manner comprehended by the community of those who love God and are known by Him - and this is not to condone error.

But I will not easily say that Mother Teresa, serving the most needy in a manner that I do not think I could ever do, is not only not a Christian but was deluded and lived in error. I know myself too well to be able to say that.

'Outside the Church there is only error' may well be true in a particular sense, but in my experience outside the bounds of visible Orthodoxy there is a great deal of the truth, not a different truth, but the same Orthodox truth in a fragmentary and partial way. The response of my heart is to want to find this truth and celebrate it and build on it as a basis for sharing the Orthodox faith - not as the abrogation of everything that has taken place in a person's spiritual pilgrimage, but as the fulfillment of it.

I am happy to take the phrase 'outside the Church there is only error' as a spur to myself to be used by God, if He wills, to bring correction to others, but correction not condemnation. I don't think I am happy to take it in the sense of THEM and US, and that 'outside the Church there is no truth at all , no real spiritual experience'. Unless of course we broaden our concept of the Church to something wider than our own explicit communities.

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?

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

But why on earth are Orthodox Christians wasting time speculating about Buddhism?

Well, certainly as a substitute for, or worse, adjunct to, Christianity, it is a waste of time. HOWEVER, for those who desire to be like the Apostle Paul, who was able to preach to the Greeks through their "unknown god", knowledge of what others teach can be helpful. Learning the culture of the Inuit and Tlgint peoples helped the Orthodox monastics teach them Orthodoxy in ways they could understand and appreciate. Some of us have friends, acquaintances, workmates, who are into Buddhism. Being able to communicate with them at something other than a superficial level can be useful, yes?

[Andreas Moran]

Well, if that reason only then maybe. But we are also told to be careful where we cast our pearls. Why don't we just say the prayer of Saint Silouan, 'I pray thee most merciful Lord that all the peoples of the world may come to know thee by thy Holy Spirit', and leave it to God?

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are many ministries. Some can leave it to God, but God sometimes leaves it to us to be His witness, yes? Why else did He send the Apostles? Why else did the Apostle Paul address the Greeks? That is how the Holy Spirit works, yes? Through His Church and we are His Church.

I am not advocating that every Orthodox Christian learn the teachings of Siddartha and I agree that they add nothing to our faith, unless they help us communicate with Buddhists, even as the Russian monks communicated with the Alaskan pagans, to the point where Orthodoxy became known as the NATIVE religion of Alaska. They did this by learning the native culture and adapting it to make it Orthodox. But you cannot change or adapt something you have no understanding of. This is the major mistake of most Protestant missionaries. They typically have to replace the local culture with a western culture before they can really missionize the locals into a western religion. Orthodoxy takes the intrinsic need to seek God found in almost all cultures, like Christ and the Samaritan woman and like the Apostle Paul to the Greeks, telling them they worship what they do not know, and they fill in the blanks. But somebody needs to know where the blanks are by learning where the blanks aren't, to leverage what is there to help them make the jump to what is lacking.

Obviously, this is not your ministry, perhaps it is not mine. Some of us are simply trying to be ready to defend the hope that is in us when challenged, in words that our challengers might understand.

But I do agree upfront that "mixing" non-Christian religion with the teachings of Orthodoxy is a very bad idea.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Herman,

What you say about mission is, of course, right. Each one of us needs to know what is his mission and to have a blessing for whatever it may be. We can't all learn a bit about religions on the off chance we engage with a Buddhist or whoever. Many of us will be witnesses to our faith simply by being who and what we are in the milieu we find ourselves in. We're strangers in the world these days anyway.

[Peter Farrington]

I would say that all Christians, in the West especially where we will meet people from a wide variety of backgrounds, should read a book that explains what other faiths teach.

And example is

Pocket Guide to Sects and New Religions

http://www.tesco.com/books/product.aspx?R=9780745951591

On sale at a leading UK supermarket for just £5.99.

Its just 224 pages, so in a week a Christian could learn as much as would be reasonable without having some specific ministry in view. I think that we have a responsiblity to know at least this much about people as it shows that we have a respect for them as people, and it allows us to have some idea of their background beliefs when we speak to them.

In the same way we should know the basics about other Christian's beliefs. In my own life, not wishing to speak of anyone else, I sense that if I do not bother to know what others believe then I do not show them respect as people made in the image of God. I don't need to learn a lot, but if I don't know anything about the Society of Friends, for instance, how can I approach a Friend and suggest that they are missing some aspect of the Christian life.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Glad that you have a bit of time to post here again - you've been missed.

The point you make here is an interesting one. I have noticed across the time I have been here the confidence with which we have all, at times, written about what it is we have been taught that others believe; only to discover that when people write for themselves about what it is they believe, it isn't what we thought! So it is probably not a bad idea for those in mission and those undertaking inter-faith or inter-communal dialogue to know something of what their interlocutors believe.

But I think it goes without saying, really, that none of us thinks it is a good idea to mix the Gospel message with anything else. We hold to the Faith once delivered to the Apostles. If, for those of us engaged in mission work, knowing something about what others believe helps this task, excellent; otherwise, it is probably not something people would want to engage with, I suspect.

At the heart of our salvation is the personal encounter at the Eucharistic Feast with the person of the Incarnate Word; for most of us that is a hard enough furrow to plough.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear Andreas, Herman, Peter, Mourad,

Andreas, thank you for your question(s) that solicited responses from Herman and Peter.

It is not lost on me how in a rational conversation, about such things as we find ourselves discussing here, one can find a tremendous learning aid/tool . . . and bridges can be built, and lines of communication established. Yes, just as ignorance of such things is not a virtue for me, in my calling, and in the multi-cultural area that I live; the inability to communicate clearly with one's neighbor is normally not a virtue either.

Herman and Peter, thank you both[!] very much for your posts here. There is much wisdom in both of these posts, yes some things are "common sense!" As you both have mentioned things including Evangelism and Mission, which have areas of overlap with Apologetics, you provide possibly a more solid reference point than one of a mere pedagogy. And, this is not to detract from the necessity of Christian Education, but to simply say that your points are well made and well received.

And, Mourad . . . I honestly do *not* know what to say after reading your response to Father David [BTW Father, thanks for 'clearing things up' for us--I had to hit my 'easy button' again after seeing how you addressed that question ;) ].

And, this is because your question is my question. Your point of confusion is my point of confusion.

When you say:




I'm sorry father but I'd still have to say that I'm quite confused as to how you can create two categories of virtue, ie natural and spiritual virtue, one which is the domain of all people and the other exclusive to Christians or maybe only Orthodox, I'm not quite sure which really.

If you were to say to me that the Buddhist can never really grasp the depth of spirituality that perhaps a Christian can delve to this then I can perhaps be able to accept. But to say blatantly that a Buddhist cannot live a spiritual life or have spiritual virtues seems somewhat odd. Would this mean that a Buddhist can never love or have peace or be humble and so on.

It seems to me that virtue in all its forms is not limited to Orthodox or even Christians but can be found in all places and within peoples of all nations and faiths, some more than others and with differing degrees.

I wonder if there is any theological or patristic basis for such a distinction.



it occurs to me that back beginning at about post #170 or #171 and forward, in this thread, in the "Nellas, Mantzaridis, and Jones"conversation, there was a direct addressing of such things as "A" spiritual life, as you say Mourad. And, I think, for any who may take a second look at that in light of the present trend, there may be a higher degree of interest in these pieces now. However, and to be more specific, as we talk about "virtues" I am not completely sure that I am following what is being said either . . . okay, I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what is being said as it relates to a limiting of virtue to the Orthodox.

Possibly, this is what I may place along side the Apostle Paul's writing as it relates to fruits of the Spirit? Or, if we bring a consideration of the Love of God into this, and consider the Love of God as a Virtue with a capital "V" or something like that, then possibly I can begin to understand the distinction. But, as it stands at the present, I am with you on this one. I am confused too. And, I would appreciate very much any help that could be offered on this one.


In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I haven't read the entirety of the posts above (too long, Rick; too many words!), but there have been some interesting comments. I certainly agree with Andreas: not all are called to all kinds of mission, and need not be 'armed' with all the knowledge and awareness possible. I also agree with Peter, in balance: that all are called to some mission, and a certain degree of awareness of the other is, for most, a good tool.

But that matter aside, the more interesting point (to me) of the above is the question of 'spirituality'. I agree wholeheartedly with those who remind that, from the Christian perspective, spirituality is solely one thing: life in the Holy Spirit of the Father.

All else is... something else.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear all,

I haven't read the entirety of the posts above (too long, Rick; too many words!), but there have been some interesting comments.





Dear Matthew,

I just took a second look at my last post, and you are right!. Yes, too much http://www.cugy.net/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif. Sorry 'bout that 'govnor'--maybe a little bit too much espresso this afternoon. So, I chopped it in half and will post the rest in a separate post another time.

In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

This is not what I read in Fr. David's post. The only way to head towards a restoration of Adam' state before the fall is through Jesus Christ. The Incarnate Christ the only path to full restoration.

~Athanasia~

Athanasia,

I've been thinking about a fuller answer to this. I agree with what you say.

When I think of what Christ accomplished at the cross I see three complimentary movements

Atonement -cleansing and healing or the symptoms of our rebellion
Redemption -Christ reclaiming us and freeing us from the bondage to sin, death and the devil
Resurrection - Entering into the Life of the Trinity through participation in the Divine Nature

Atonement is an OT concept wherein the shedding of blood cleanses, it is a sign of God's mercy and provision. The first reference we see is right after the fall when God clothed Adam and Eve with skins. Our mortality and weakness is God's provision that enables us to experience our sinful state and repent of it. Paul speaking of the atonement in Rom 3:25-6 says


God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

We know that nothing unclean, no sin, can enter into God's presence. Therefore although it is in Christ's death that the atonement had its fulfillment. This same power for our cleansing was already working beforehand. Otherwise Mary would not have been able to conceive Christ.

And John says in I John 1:1-2

1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

However, Redemption was not empowered in time until Christ's death at the cross. At that point those who died beforehand were raised and set free. It is the Church that, empowered by the Spirit is doing the work of redeeming humanity, so that once Christ has reclaimed all things God can transform them. (God cannot transform what He does not have, just as He cannot reclaim what is not clean).

The upshot of all this is that I believe the Buddhist monk (or whoever) can be healed and cleansed and restored to natural virtue only through what Christ has done. And this is available to all whether in the Church or out of it. However, those outside of the Church cannot be redeemed from the intrinsic rebellion against God that exists.

[Celinda Grace]

I'm sorry father but I'm not sure how you exactly distinguish between the natural benefit to the soul and the spiritual benefit to the soul.

For both the Buddhist and Christian isn't the purpose of such techniques to aide in dispassion and purification towards enlightenment and illumination. Can't a Buddhist also grow in virtue in as much as a Christian can through the use of such techniques and then isn't all of this of spiritual benefit for both the Christian and the Buddhist.


Mourad,

I hope my previous post has answered your question. Yes dispassion and purification are possible outside the Church. However, Christ is a Life-giving Spirit. The Buddhist has no power for true spiritual transformation.

I Cor 15:42-46

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

Enlightenment is not the end of the path but the beginning of true spiritual life for the Christian. It is the beginning of relationship with God at much more intimate levels, and this continues to grow and mature. For the Buddhist, illumination is the goal after which things go back to normal. After enlightenment there is no more because the Buddhist still being in rebellion against God denies God.

To repeat here Gregory of Nyssa's quote that Fr. Raphael posted earlier.

“It is absolutely impossible, however, to truly encounter God unless, in addition to being cleansed, we go outside, or rather, beyond ourselves,

On the question of virtue -True Christain virute lies in this: "As I have loved you so you must love one another." Christ died for us. Christian martyrs die for the sake of others.

This is something I do not know the answer to, but does Buddhism teach martyrdom or only personal enlightenment?

[Rick H.]

Mourad,

Enlightenment is not the end of the path but the beginning of true spiritual life for the Christian. It is the beginning of relationship with God at much more intimate levels, and this continues to grow and mature.




Dear Celinda,

It sounds like you are saying here that In the End, we find the Beginning of true spiritual life? Hmm . . . I will have to ponder this one for a bit. ;) In the End, the Beginning. I do have to admit that it sounds very familiar. :)

And, when you provide the following:




On the question of virtue -True Christain virute lies in this: "As I have loved you so you must love one another." Christ died for us. Christian martyrs die for the sake of others.



As true Christian virtue relates to a theology of Love, yes, a thousand times yes!

Thank you again.

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Well, certainly as a substitute for, or worse, adjunct to, Christianity, it is a waste of time. HOWEVER, for those who desire to be like the Apostle Paul, who was able to preach to the Greeks through their "unknown god", knowledge of what others teach can be helpful. Learning the culture of the Inuit and Tlgint peoples helped the Orthodox monastics teach them Orthodoxy in ways they could understand and appreciate. Some of us have friends, acquaintances, workmates, who are into Buddhism. Being able to communicate with them at something other than a superficial level can be useful, yes?

Yes, and no dear Herman. I met many Mayan people in the past days (because I was visiting the area where that civilization thrived) and I did not find it necessary to know a lot about Mayan religion in order to relate, or communicate with them. Actually my knowledge is extremely minimal. When I was asked I said that "I am an Orthodox Christian." I smiled and nothing else. They kept asking more and more. With the ones turned Catholic, it was easier, but the rest had maaaaany questions (talk about going there to learn about their culture and relax :) ). I did not have to see things from their angle in order to respond. I just answered to my best knowledge about my faith and Christ. But ah, they made it very easy, they were so wonderful and receptive and always smiling and so joyful! It was very, very easy to feel good in their midst.

I really enjoyed the people and their attitude there and if I was a nun I would have gone and started an Orthodox convent in that area because there was definitely thirst. I learned so much from them also and mainly from their simplicity and hospitality (as soon as they would hear my relation to Greece, instantly they would play Greek music!!! I have no idea how they would come up with that!!! They were so receptive and hospitable! Oh and some friends of mine after my return called and told me that I was the only person they knew that drove around in that area and were asking how many times I was endangered there and if I am well and etc. :) giggles...)

If you would like to learn something about the Mayan religion: their calendar halts after the year 2012 and after that shows only darkness. So we better hurry up and teach the world some more about Christ.

[Theophrastus]

This is something I do not know the answer to, but does Buddhism teach martyrdom or only personal enlightenment?

"Martyrdom" and "personal enlightenment" are terms that, of course, need to be, not only 'defined', but also 'unpacked'.

If by 'martyrdom', you mean 'the willingness to undergo two and only two experiences: (1) maintaining one's faith and staying alive; or (2) maintaining one's faith even to the point of death', then many Buddhists have been martyred over the years (and not only at the hands of militant political leaders of the Islamic persuasion). Since non-violence is such an essential element in Buddhism, martyrdom has always been part of the Buddhist perspective.

If 'martyrdom' is meant to be equivalent to 'living and dying for others', then 'martyrdom' is at the heart of the Buddhist tradition.

If by 'personal enlightenment', is meant the ideas (1) that enlightenment can be realized by oneself and oneself alone; and (2) therefore one should isolate oneself; then such personal enlightenment does not exist in Buddhism. Enlightenment is always in the context of encountering someone else who is already enlightened, and those who are practicing thusly; enlightenment necessarily requires community, 'good company', or 'admirable companionship (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html)'.

[Celinda Grace]

Jetavan,

Thanks for replying.


"If 'martyrdom' is meant to be equivalent to 'living and dying for others', then 'martyrdom' is at the heart of the Buddhist tradition."

This certainly makes sense in any system that is striving after virtue.

What does a Buddhist gain in dying for another though? What good does it do to exchange one life for another?

[Theophrastus]

Jetavan,

Thanks for replying.



This certainly makes sense in any system that is striving after virtue.

What does a Buddhist gain in dying for another though? What good does it do to exchange one life for another?

I hesitate to speak of "gain" or "getting good" when talking about doing good for another, or dying for another. But I think we all recognize that acting in a beneficial way towards another person, does in fact have a positive impact on the person who acted thusly. So there is a "good action --> good gain" process going on here, a process that really occurs and should be acknowledged. Of course, the "good gain" might not be apparently "good" from our currently limited perspective.

Dying for another, or doing good for another -- whatever good that might happen to be -- leads to joyful afterlife (as well as a more joyful this-life). Buddhism posits multiple levels of heavens and hells in the afterlife; the heavens and hells differ in the intensity of the joy or the intensity of the pain. Someone who lovingly died for another person, or who lived a life of immense self-surrender, might end up in a higher heaven, and exist there for a very, very long time. The Buddhist texts speak in terms of millions of years for many of these heavenly time-frames. So, that's a very clear benefit from loving behavior. And likewise, harmful actions might lead to correspondingly long terms in a lower hell.

However, good actions in and of themselves cannot liberate a person from the process of samsara (the process of greed, lust, delusion): the Buddhist heavens and hells are non-eternal (even if long-lasting), so eventually a person 'dies' from a heaven and is reborn in some other realm, most likely a physical realm (e.g., earth). Liberation from samsara requires, not only good actions, but also what might be called 'good wisdom', which includes both 'faith' and 'realization of truth'.

So, dying for others (as well as living for others) ultimately culminates, when coupled with 'good wisdom', in the realization of total liberation from samsara, that is, from greed, lust, and delusion. And a person who has realized this total liberation can then help others realize it as well.

[Theophrastus]

I hesitate to speak of "gain" or "getting good" when talking about doing good for another, or dying for another....

And a person who has realized this total liberation can then help others realize it as well.

I should also point out that within Buddhism, there is an interpretative tradition that focuses on the 'heavens' and 'hells' and 'rebirths' as processes spiritual and psychological that occur in one's present life; such that heaven and hell are psycho-spiritual states of being, and 'rebirth' becomes the process of psycho-spiritual change.

I mention this in connection with the early Christian encounter with the wisdom of the Greeks, and the Christian incorporation of Plato, Aristotle, and others into a Christic framework (exemplified by Origen). One could likewise foresee a gradual Christian incorporation of Dharmic traditions, re-interpreting problematic concepts such as 'multiple heavens/hells' and 'rebirth' accordingly, and retrieving any Truth found therein. (The Sufis have interesting ways of re-interpretating 'reincarnation', which I need not go into here.) I don't believe such a process would fall under 'syncretism', though one would always want to be aware of the implications of any re-interpretative project.

The question of need, or purpose, should also be addressed. There was a clear need in the early Christian centuries to use Greek philosophical terminology to help clarify certain key Christian doctrines. One could argue that such a need does not exist, in terms of using Dharmic terminology. That may be so right now, but it must also be kept in mind that the conciliar utilization of Hellenistic terms had to wait 300 years after Christ; so given the recent Dharmic influx into the West, I would likely give another 300 years until a comparable conciliar utilization of Dharmic terms would be necessary.

If we assume that the Light of Christ exists in all men, then the problem of the differing manifestations of that Light in the Dharmic cultures poses an interesting riddle. Socrates was given honorary 'Christian' status by Justin Martyr, I believe. Could such an action be done for the Buddha? (Well, we all know the story of Barlaam and Johasaphat.) And if so, how does one Christianly reinterpret Buddhist cosmology and soteriology? What such a project be worth the time and energy? What would be the benefit?

Christ the Eternal Tao might serve as an Orthodox model outlining a broad perspective on how this issue could be approached -- not from an overt rationalism, but experientially. Taoism is probably an easier tradition to deal with, since the Tao Te Ching is a pretty philosophically non-complicated text (which, ironically, makes it a very easily misunderstood text!). Traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism appear (from the texts available to Westerners) much more philosophically well-defined and symbolically complex, compared to Taoism; an Orthodox re-reading of the Vedas, for instance, would pose immense challenges -- though Catholic priest Raimon Panikkar, who father was Hindu and mother Spanish Catholic, did write a commentary of the Vedas, from a more-or-less Christian perspective, a commentary that was well-received in the Hindu community.

Peace,

[Rick H.]

Therefore, spare us, from the "illumination" of Eastern religions!




Dear Kornelius,

It is apparent that your knowledge of "Eastern religions" is very limited and lacking. But, we are not here to develop and consider Eastern religions, so to offer correction in some areas would not be appropriate.

As it relates to an Hebraic expression to be found within the Christian faith, I hope you are not suggesting a turning from this, in any way, in the introduction to your last post.

Otherwise, I would like to invite you to join the present discussion in a more constructive way. You may even wish to listen to the above mentioned podcast, there has been some discussion broadcast there (Ancient Faith Radio), about such things as we are considering now, that makes us look pretty tame here. You may find some fodder there that is relevant to the recent discussion of Fr. R and Dr. J.

In Christ,
Rick

[Kornelius]

It is apparent that your knowledge of "Eastern religions" is very limited and lacking. But, we are not here to develop and consider Eastern religions, so to offer correction in some areas would not be appropriate.

First, I believe that the purpose of being here is to engage in serious theological discourses not in argumentum ad hominem. It is neither spiritually proper, nor academically proper, for ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Second, you can not be selective and encourage on one hand comparative theology contributions from others, while on the other hand telling me that "we are not here to develop and consider Eastern Religions." You can not have in the same thread one standard for some and another standard for others.

Third, if my knowledge of Eastern religions is limited don’t limit yourself in abstract tautological expressions “it’s lacking because you think it’s lacking” but please elaborate yourself and demonstrate in which ways you see things differently and then we could have a proper discussion.


As it relates to an Hebraic expression to be found within the Christian faith, I hope you are not suggesting a turning from this, in any way, in the introduction to your last post.

You have missed the point here. My point is not about Judaism per se but about the futility of Eastern religions. They were made obsolete by the fullness of revelation in Christ at the event of His glorious Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and Ascension. Nota bene, although this fullness of revelation transcends also that of the Old Testament, by no means it implies equality between the revelation of the OT and the inadequacy of Eastern philosophies. The OT will forever be the revelation of Christ in the world prior to His Inhomination. Christianity is continuation of Judaism. Judaism was instituted by God, though His patriarchs and prophets and paved the way for humanity to receive the fullness of Christ.

The fullness of the revelation of Christ is contemplated only within the True Church, i.e., the One Holy Apostolic Universal Orthodox Church. From my study of saint’s literature I believe there is not a single saint of the Orthodox Church whose nous was illumined by wisdoms outside of it. Their background could have been diverse, yet the source of their illumination was unique. It comes from the uncreated energies of Christ. He is the genuine and sole Torch for us Orthodox.

Once again I welcome a good constructive discussion with any one. But just mentioning that you want a constructive discussion does not make it so. You have to elaborate your ideas, indicate where you disagree with my “limited knowledge of Eastern Religions,” and divorce yourself from abstract and vague statements.

[Anthony]

I am not in a position to talk about Indian religion. Perhaps I might however post some extracts from the biography of somebody who came into intimate contact with it, Mother Gavriilia, which relate to certain points that have been made. I apologize for their length, and for any mistakes (I am not good at typing long passages quickly).

[Anthony]

- Do you know why you went to India?

- No. The Lord would go before me and I would follow. But you know, as soon as I reached India, in the first place where I went and stayed [the Ashram of Sivananda, in the hospital of which she first worked], something came to me like a message: the passage in the Gospel, "Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles... but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt I:5). And what do I see there, lots and lots of foreigners. Europeans, Americans, going there to become Hindus, to lose Christ. I saw them all coming and "seeking" the Truth. But you know, everybody in India is still seeking the Truth. Many of their great wise men would ask me, "Are you a seeker after Truth?" And I would answer: "You know, I am from a certain church called the Orthodox Church." They had never heard of it up there. They knew Catholics, they knew Protestants, but this church - no. I would say, "this church exists in Greece and many other countries." "We know about Socrates and Pythagoras. So, we accept you as a descendant of theirs." And when they asked me to speak, I always said to them, "It gives me particular joy to be with you in a pre-Christian age, because I see your searching and I hope that one day you too will find the Light, as have so many others throughout the world."... And one day a member of parliament came upto me and asked me, "We too need a Socrates...". In fact, though, wherever I went, I almost always met Europeans. And all these Christians wanted to leave Christ! And I say, "That is my mission. To love them so that they return." And by the Power of God, many of them did return... I had an enthusiasm then that I can't describe... India was a great adventure in the faith and love of God. Because I had gone not knowing anything. Not where, or how, or anything. To a foreign country, a foreign language, without money... God and I upon the earth... I wasn't asking for anything. I expected only Invitation - at whatever level of action. Because when Christ calls you, you don't have Will... where he takes you, you go. And he always took me to very poor environments - like Fr Athanasios Anthidis who is now going through exactly what I went through thirty years ago. And in the same places. In Hooghly, outside Calcutta. I know what it is like, when the rats are as big as cats! Horrible... And today, I am so certain that I don't have to think of anything! I am as I was the day I first left for India. I wait for the Will of God. And if anybody proposes anything, I say "yes, certainly" and off I go. That is how I went round India... "Come and work." I went, I worked and I left...

- But you loved them very much...

- All I was interested in was Love. I loved that nation. I loved it for many reasons. Because when you stop loving it is like you stop breathing. It is the Breath of God. Where I was there came so many sick people, so many suffering, so many hungry. There came whole families of pilgrims, there in the Himalayas, who had been walking for perhaps six or seven days, others fifteen, others six months.. And their children often died there. The first job to fall to me in the hospital there was to put into a bag, with a stone, a dead child who they were going to throw into the River Ganges. Suddenly I felt such sorrow come upon me that involuntarily I started pouring with tears. And then the "Abbot of the Monastery" [Sivananda]: "Look at that! A person has come from the ends of the earth to cry for this child."... After a while they got to know that there was someone there who offered healing*. And indeed I have to tell you that the miracles which Christ worked were so astonishing that I often stood speechless! Because you know, it is very easy for people who don't know any medicine not to have any doubts. As soon as I told them that I was going to do a little massage and their sick arm etc. would get better, they would believe it. And through this faith of theirs, and the help of God, they would get better. So, word got around that a Greek woman had come who could help you, and so on. And so then they begin to ask "Which church is she from?" At exactly that time I happened to meet Indira Gandhi. She had some problem with her neck, and I gave her a massage. At that time her father Nehru was still alive. She talked to me and told me about her life. One day a lady came and she wanted to introduce me. She asked, "is the lady a Catholic?" "Er no, she belongs to a church you have never heard of. A completely different church"... the difference was this, and anybody who thinks I am wrong please forgive me... that I didn't talk. I never said anything! I just loved, and worked and worked and worked. And one day some great wise man came with some others and says to me: "Who is your God?". I say, "There is one God, and His Son is Christ. He is my God." "I see. But why didn't you tell us? It is the first time we have seen a European not telling us that our gods are nothing. But you, you see our life, you know our philosophy. How come? The missionaries always condemn and leave - condemn and leave." I tell him, "I cannot say that. And you know why? Because our own ancestors were like you." Then he says to me, "Why do you say that?" And I began to talk about the Ancient Greeks and to explain that the Christianity which came to our land did not root out all our ancient philosophy, but gave us Christ as Life. For Christ is not just Religion. He is Life.... And then they started asking me for Bibles...

[Anthony]

...This is also when the important meetng with Alan took place, the beginning of their friendship which led to his baptism... This event certainly altered Sivanandra's attitude to her for the worse. It was perhaps the reason for certain strange phenomena which happened to her afterwards, which she described to us once, though only after much urging on our part.

Maybe they are worth reading...

One night when she was in her room at the time of prayer, she opens her eyes for a moment and what does she see? The bed was somewhere else! She shuts her eyes again and continues the Prayer. After a while she opens them again and looks out of the window. She couldn't see the moon any more. "I was blind", she said to E.Birbou. "In my suspense, I continued to pray more intensely. At some point I fell asleep. When I woke up in the morning, I could see! Then I realized that they had done something to me... When I met Sivanandra in the hall, he asked me if I had slept well. Yes, I tell him, very well! He had a good look at me, went and talked a bit further away with a nun who was writing something with a typewriter, and came back to me and asked me the same question, giving a strange look to the monk who was behind me... And again I tell him "Yes, very well Glory to God". He looked at me again thoughtfully without saying anything more... Months later, I learnt that they do such things through the invocation of evil spirits, in order to frighten unwanted guests or to "charm" others into staying there forever. I know one German woman who went mad over the things they did to her... In a few days Sivananda came and suggested I move up to the upper floor, because they had given me... the wrong room! But I kept it. From then on they all began to look at me strangely... They began to feel that somebody mightier was protecting me, and I - that my time had come to move on."

[Peter Farrington]

I am not in a position to talk about Indian religion. Perhaps I might however post some extracts from the biography of somebody who came into intimate contact with it, Mother Gavriilia, which relate to certain points that have been made. I apologize for their length, and for any mistakes (I am not good at typing long passages quickly).

Dear brother

These are wonderful words. Very moving.

What is the text these passages have come from. I would dearly love to read more.

Peter

[Theophrastus]

More on Mother Gavriilia and Alan (http://sgpm.goarch.org/Monastery/index.php?p=39).

I believe the stories of her India travels are in The Ascetic of Love (http://sgpm.goarch.org/Monastery/index.php?p=36)

[Rick H.]

Dear Anthony, Dear Jetavan,

Anthony, thank you for this piece. I think Peter put it best when he said, "These are wonderful words. Very moving."

Jetavan, thank you for the additional info/links. As I read the excerpt that you contributed, I thought to myself what wisdom and what a beautiful model we see here as it relates to evangelism in general, and Love in particular.

Also, in the following, I especially appreciated the use of the word 'bliss' in the following as Alan, the one who came to India to speak to the famous Guru, found "the bliss of God!" through the Person of Christ. Alan's path was *not* the Christian path, but seeminly within the scope of two weeks or so, one night 'Christ was born into the "heart" of Alan:




That night, our Australian friend was so moved that with tears in his eyes he told me: “Sister Lila, please sit at the piano and let us sing now all the Christmas carols. Christ has just been born in my heart”. So, I started playing the piano, and everyone, the mother, the girls, the boys began to sing, in high summer, all the Christmas carols that we knew… Alan was literally in the bliss of God!



And, in some ways, I will share with you that Alan's experience after this night has been my experience too. And, also, in a similar fashion when Alan was told that Truth is not a system but a Person, this is not unlike when Owen Jones told us last week that we need no theoretical justification, because just as is said in the following, the Truth is not a theory, it is Christ!:




“Everything that happened then was really good. Since then, however, I saw a lot of things that didn’t go the way you said they would. This is why I returned to India, seeking the Truth”, “But I told you, Alan, that Truth is not a theory, it is Christ who said: «I am the Truth»



I am fully persuaded that if more understood this simple point that is modeled above, there would be a much lower degree of misunderstandings to be found within Christendom. But, this would require the kind of abandonment and surrender that is also spoke above in this article. Actually, Celinda, if you are reading this, and if you have time to give Jetavan's link a run through (it's not very long) you may see some of the same exact same points made in this passage that our friend Oswald Chambers makes repeatedly as he speaks of the life abandoned to God.

And, there does come a point when a kind of 'tough love' is required. And, when Alan is asked in the following, "Don't you understand that?" we see an example of this, I think:




Everything we have is by His Grace! Only by the Grace of God! In spite of our sins. It is by His Grace that we are as we are. Through the Blood of Christ's Sacrifice. Don’t you understand that?”



Yes, 'through' the Blood of the Lamb. It's a somewhat dark and cloudy Sunday morning as I write this now, and I am remembering some of the old hymns as I sit here. "There is power (power), wonder working power, in the blood (in the blood) of the lamb . . . there is power (power), wonder working power in the
precious-blood-of-the-lamb. I liked the praise band songs very much too. I wonder if any here remember the hymn "Be Thou My Vision"? Hmm . . .

May we all know the Bliss of God.

In Christ

Rick

John 8:31-32 (What happens before the Truth makes you free in these two verses?)

[Anthony]

The lessons I would draw from the passages I posted would be very different; namely that while in certain respects India can be compared with Ancient Greece, its religion offers nothing to the Orthodox Christian (and indeed has its sinister aspects). And this from an Orthodox Christian who knew India, loved its people and respected its culture. The only person on these boards who is in a comparable position to comment on Indian religion from an Orthodox point of view is, I would think, Fr Seraphim.

I don't believe that the amazing life of obedience reflected in the passage can be equated with the "open-minded abandonment" which certain philosophers of religion prize so highly. Remember that Mother Gavriilia was brought up as a traditional Orthodox Christian in Constantinople before the exchange of populations, and lived her later life as a nun (her story was recorded for us by nuns). When she became a nun some people were anxious that she might have compromised her Orthodoxy in India, and ended up being reassured that she had not done so in any way.

I have not being following this thread up till now, but I have to agree with Kornelius and Nina that its title (and its subtitle from the first post, "The Orthodox Catholic Tradition") are going to mislead a lot of people if its content is in fact mainly drawn from elsewhere.

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Before the Truth made us free we were slaves to sin and Satan.

1 John 1:5-10 tells us more:

1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us

St. John reminds us that the only root of a real Christian life in ourself, or in a Church, is to think and believe rightly about God. We have to love the Lord our God 'with all our mind' - and avoid idolatry - which, of course is, at root, the entertaining of false ideas of God. That is, I suspect, what prompts some of our fellows here to protest about the 'Eastern mysticism' bits.

That said, it might be worth noting that the Emperor Constantine invited pagan philosophers to Nicaea in 325 A.D. - although I do not recall their being asked to speak - though I have always imagined they were cheering for Arius, whose views exemplified what is at the heart of heresy - human pride and intellect, as well as the absence of that right relationship with God - which is at the heart of our salvation.

In Christ,

John

[Lourens]

Anthony wrote:


"[S]ome people were anxious that she might have compromised her Orthodoxy in India."

Sir,

I have also really enjoyed your posts about the Greek lady's Indian experience. Thank you. I find it amazing how the simplicity of actual testimony can be so inspiring!

Now, I was intrigued by the words quoted above, and cannot help but ask: "What exactly is meant by the idea that one's Orthodoxy may be compromised?"

How is that done?

Would it be the same as to compromise one's salvation?

Would it be the same as to deny Christ?

Is it even possible for those who find themselves in Christ, yet outside of Orthodoxy, to compromise their faith, or is their (un-Orthodox) faith considered a compromise already? If so, a compromise with what and whom--the world and the devil?

Would Mother Gavriilia's (feared, assumed, projected) compromise have been with the devil (in the person of the guru) and the (pre-Christian) world (of Hinduism)?

From the story it seems evident that the lady was bringing a greater light into the ashram than the "disperser of darkness" (guru) himself, and indeed revealed Christ brightly in that darkness, by simple, obedient, abandonment.

I simply cannot understand the notion of "compromise" in that situation.

Thank you for considering my confusion.

Respectfully,

Learner

[Anthony]

Dear Lourens (if I may),

I am not quite sure, so it is best if I simply give you the text I was referring to.



In Bethany she lived as a novice for three years. At the beginning she was an enigma for everybody. They probably thought, "She has come from India... she lived over there for so many years with people of different religion... suppose she has picked up some odd customs?"

For better or for worse Fr. Theodosios asked an Archimandrite from the Holy Sepulchre for his opinion. In few days he took her with him to a blessing (Agiasmos) which he was due to perform, and on the way he asked her various questions. Had she eaten anything suspicious, anything sacrificed to idols... When he heard the answers he wanted, they returned to the monastery. "OK, Geronta, everything OK," he shouted through the car window to Gerontas Theodosios, who at that moment was standing in the monastery gate. She herself pretended not to understand what had gone on. However once the Gerontas had had his mind put to rest by the Archimandrite's answer, he told her.

[Lourens]

Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your speedy, honest reply.

The additional quote you offered does bring some light, mostly that it was a "projection" of others on the spiritual well-being of our heroine.

Even so, I find it difficult to understand how "odd customs" and foreign foods could have robbed her of her Orthodoxy.

Respectfully,

Learner

[Anthony]

Dear Lourens,

I think in context "odd customs*" is getting at the idea of "pagan practices". And eating food sacrificed to idols is of course an old problem from early Christianity.

I understand the whole passage to mean simply that she was clear of any suspicion of syncretism arising from her time in India.

Anthony

* (in Greek "alloiotikes synetheies", which is a bit more than "odd").

[Nina]

Dear Anthony,

You have translated that text (about Mother Gavrilia) yourself, haven't you? Thank you dear friend for the contribution and your time, also for typing it all for us! :)

Dear Lea Stone (Lourens)

Like the translator (Anthony) of the passage states, yes, eating food sacrificed to the idols is a problem and not only from early Christianity, but since the times of the Old Testament. Not only this, but God urged the people of Israel not to marry foreign women (because of foreign religions, traditions etc. they would bring with them) etc.

[Rick H.]

"Thanks, but No Thanks"


Dear Anthony,

. . . The additional quote you offered does bring some light, mostly that it was a "projection" of others on the spiritual well-being of our heroine . . .


Respectfully,

Learner

Dear Learner,

It is a very sad thing, and a dangerous thing, in a so called historic Orthodox Christian approach, when we do not recognize that we are projecting our fears on others. Projecting in any fashion is not usually a wise way to go. And, the Holy Scriptures tell us that we are to be sober and to be alert because the lion is on the prowl; however, on the other hand, inordinate expectations/assumptions lead to all kinds of irrational fears and phobias which can absolutely drive a person mad. And, there is a flip-side to this, isn't there? However, the Bible is clear about the relationship of the Christian to anxiety, even on a superficial read, we see anxiousness (and fear) is not the spirit that we have been given by God. And, while we know there is evil in the world, may we not confuse satan with the bogeyman.

I've seen this before, and so have you. This is nothing new. On one hand it is almost comical, but on the other hand as it effects the lives of real people who are struggling to find the Truth of the proclamation of Jesus Christ, it is a very sad thing. A theology of anxiety is nothing new, but then again neither is a theology of freedom. Possibly, one day, more than is apparent at the present, we will move from a place of anxiety to a place of freedom, and then from a place of being free indeed to a place of hope. Can you 'imagine' such a thing ? Hmm . . . 'you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one . . . one day I hope that you will join us" and the Church will live as one. Okay, I am a dreamer, and I like some of the Beatles music too :)

Possibly, one day we will move beyond a 'theology of the bogeyman' here in this thread, and be able to have a constructive discussion about a personal spiritual practice to be found within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Is there anyone out there that sees the value of a personal spiritual practice and would like to try to help me understand the shape and dimension of an Eastern Orthodox approach?

Like in Merton's book "Seeds of Contemplation" his first chapter deals with what contemplation is, and his second chapter deals with what contemplation is not . . .

This is the approach, I am trying to use here. Maybe this approach is not appropriate for this community; however I would like to continue to solicit contributions here from those who know the difference between a contribution and a reaction.

Or, in other words, those who make contributions to our topic, in a constructive manner, 'the contributors,' are most welcome, please enquire within! However, those who play the part of 'the reactionaries' may be better served down the road, or maybe not God willing!

A personal spiritual practice anyone?

There is suffering; but, may Love abide

In Christ,
Rick

[Lourens]

My thanks to Anthony, and Nina:

I know now what you are referring to and understand the context of the story to define what you meant earlier with "compromised her Orthodoxy."

This story aside, though, I am still left with the question of what would constitute a serious compromise of one's faith, and whether external cultural stuff could really undermine the salvation that is inherent in being a new creation.

The love of Christ---that would allow an apostle to "become all things to all men;" that would render all things pure to the pure in heart; that would allow everything eaten to be sanctified by thanksgiving; and that teaches us that it is not possible to be defiled from what enters the body by the mouth---will surely keep any one who dwells in obedience?


Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 8:35,38,39

Respectfully,

Learner

[Nina]

It is a very sad thing, and a dangerous thing, in a so called historic Orthodox Christian approach, when we do not recognize that we are projecting our fears on others. Projecting in any fashion is not usually a wise way to go.


Please indicate clearly where do you see the projection of fears you speak about.

[Rick H.]

Eastern Orthodox Scholars?

Dear All,

While we wait to see if there are any more comments on the present aspect of our conversation about a personal spiritual practice, I would like to ask a question about something I think I am seeing as a somewhat common theme here in the threads.

I was reminded about this when I read a line in Effie's post above where it says, "I didn't want or need to delve into its [Indian] philosophical areas because of my Orthodox faith." And, I'm not picking on you Effie, I promise, because I am not totally sure what you mean here, and as a stand alone statement this is more than fine as it seems to indicates a complete fulfillment (as it should be) with one's faith tradition.

But, this reminded me that it seems in some other posts, here at Monachos.net, that it is a taboo of sorts to study other religions. Is this the case? Is the study of world religions something that is shunned in Orthodoxy? I know who some of the Protestant and Catholic Scholars of 'World Religions' are (you can look them, and others, up on the Internet with little problem), as well as the secular scholars of 'Comparative Religion.' But, I do not know who their counterparts are within the Eastern Orthodox world.

And, for that matter, after reading the study bible thread yesterday, I am thinking the same is true of Hebrew Scholars. I know who the Hebrew scholars are in the non-Eastern Orthodox Christian faith traditions, and secular, but I do not know who the Eastern Orthodox. When I do an Internet search I am not seeing any pop up.

And, I realize this may turn into another spin-off thread, if there is not a quick and clear answer; however while we are killing some time:


1.) Can anyone bring me up to speed on my pondering of the possibility that, in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is taboo to study about other religions/faith traditions of other cultures?


2.) a. Can anyone tell me who the Eastern Orthodox World Religion scholars are?

b. Can anyone tell me who the Eastern Orthodox Hebrew Studies scholars are?


Earlier in this same thread I found that some are sensitive to just the mere mention of the word "Buddhism." And, I have since found out why, but I wonder if some could possibly bring me up to speed on the above please.


Shalom-Shalom.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

All things are lawful, but not all things are convenient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

I don't think there is anything wrong in learning about other religions or philosophies, per se, but I think we need to be aware that there is danger if we think we can "improve" the teachings of the Orthodox Church by incorporating external elements. Christ is the whole revelation, the Catholic and Orthodox Church contains all that is needful for salvation. This is what happened with the Gnostics, who tried to "harmonize" and combine Christian and pagan teachings.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Rick, Herman wrote "All things are lawful, but not all things are convenient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

I think this explains a lot. "Not all things edify".

There is this matter of choice again. May I give you an example - perhaps a little far-fetched, but one concerning something that is becoming more and more of a problem in today's world.

If someone "studies" pornography, starts with a mild interest, then becomes addicted to this type of writing, what happens to this person's character?

I would think it would gradually change, even without the person himself recognizing that he was changing.

The above example is rather drastic, but I believe that it vividly reveals what unbalanced reading can bring about.

I have the books Great thinkers of the Eastern World - Editor Ian P. McGreal and The world's Wisdom by Phillip Novak. I have 3 books by Ghandi. These are the books I chose to keep in my library from the many I have read all these years. What was my conclusion? There are bits and pieces that I found helpful e.g. Buddha's eight-fold path. There is great wisdom there.

But, Rick, I found that I can find all I need and want in the writings of the Orthodox Church. Our christian philosophy, if you will, contains all the wisdom of the world. Seeking wisdom in texts concerning religions that have nothing to do with Christ seems pointless to me. Along with the wise words, the true words that you find, you also find a lot of things that are just too bizarre and, in my opinion, incomprehensible. Believing such things would eventually lead down strange paths that might prove harmful. One of the quotes I posted in my last message says this exactly.

Even atheist psychologists admit that Christ's words demonstrate a complete knowledge of the human being and its needs. He used few words but it would take several lifetimes for us to analyze and interpret them, and in the end we would find that what he said and told us to do are all we need to lead fruitful and contented lives.

Effie

[Rick H.]

A Very Important Question: 'The Frog in the Kettle'


Dear Effie, Dear Herman,

Herman, I agree with you, I don't think there is anything wrong with learning about non-Christian philosophes/religions, per se, but we must be "aware" (good word) of the dangers. And, Herman, in addition to your comments about the grave error of attempting to harmonize pagan teachings with Christian teachings, Effie, as you have well said[!], what we take in from any media, through the eye gate, the ear gate, can and does change us sometimes so gradually that we do not notice it. And, yes, Herman, we must be aware of this *simple* fact.

In this sense, anything from the soft porn on display on magazine racks as we go through the grocery store check out line, to the pagan teachings in the story lines of many television shows and movies, also clearly demonstrate how we must always be sober and alert, and aware. I have spoke with some Christians in the past who will never study other religions or philosophies, and for them this whole conversation is moot; however, these, as we all do in our own problem areas, struggle daily with input from the 'spirit of the world.'

And, as we consider this further--'where the rubber meets the road'--we see that none of us are exempt from this warning, and we see that these warnings are not just limited to academic studies, but in many ways are more applicable to our everyday life. Unless one lives in a cave, there is a constant struggle with what we take in in this way, each waking hour. Every time I sign on to the Internet to visit my favorite website, there are images on my screen in advertisements, on the edges of my screen, and so called news articles, that present the opportunity for me to participate in (and be influenced by) the 'spirit of the world' by simply being too slow to click the mouse button and move along to where one is safe from this.

In fact, I have a friend from Italy, who was telling me just the other day that our news here in America makes her shake her head. She said when she visits her home in Italy, because of the Italian media, she knows more about what is going on in the states than she does when she is here. She said this is even true with international news. She offered the Iraq war for example, saying that here we will have a report that says 16 were killed in a bomb blast today . . . and then that's it--and then she said the newscaster will then go on to tell us about something like Martha Stewart's problems, or Paris Hilton's problems in great detail. In this sense we see that most Americans are probably more knowledgeable of Rosey O'Donnell than they are of any national or international events. So we can be influenced, informed, and 'formed' both in terms of character and intelligence / 'awareness' without even knowing it.

Without even knowing it, we can be shaped and molded, little by little. Without even knowing it, we can be "dumbed down" even though we are reading magazines and newspapers like mad. Without even realzing it, we can think we are seeing the big picture, becuase we are taking it all in everyday with our sensory gates wide open; however, in reality we are being led into a state of stupor which is the opposite of being 'aware.' While thinking that we are truely seeing the Big Picture, we are increasingly becoming more and more introverted and in this sense very "stupid," in the true sense of the word.

So this state of dysfunction, brought on by the 'spirit of the world,' in the way we know *is* something to 'beware' of not just when considering other philosophies or religions, but each time we pick up a newspaper . . . and, now I realize that I am quoting Father Raphael again. I seem to be doing this more and more these days even in the real world? I wonder if he is up to his old Jedi tricks again? Hmm . . . well anyway this one is too long too, so I will just end this attempt to work my way back to where it all started yesterday by quoting Father Raphael directly (from page 7 in this thread):




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.



Yes, so we are not playing games here are we? This *is* a very important question on more than one level. How we know what we know affects everything!

In Christ,
Rick

[Theophrastus]

1.) Can anyone bring me up to speed on my pondering of the possibility that, in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is taboo to study about other religions/faith traditions of other cultures?


2.) a. Can anyone tell me who the Eastern Orthodox World Religion scholars are?






Check out the below, which has quite a few references on Orthodox studies on world religions (see footnotes 20-30):

An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp)

Rev. Protopresbyter George C. Papademetriou

[John Charmley]

Dear Jetavan,

Many thanks for the link, which I found refreshing and enlightening. I was much struck by this comment from Fr. George, which seemed to speak to the subject of this thread:

It cannot be assumed that salvation is denied non-Christians living in true piety and according to natural law by the God who "is love" (1 John 4:8), In his justice and mercy God will judge them worthy even though they are outside the true Church. This position is shared by many Orthodox who agree that God's salvation extends to all who live according to His "image" and "participate in the Logos." The Holy Spirit acted through the prophets of the Old Testament and in the nations. Salvation is also open outside the Church.

The whole piece deserves much study, and certainly gave me a new insight into how

Our exploration of an Orthodox attitude toward non-Christian religions begins with the Christian understanding of God

Many thanks for the insights.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear Jetavan,

Yes, "refreshing," as John has said, refreshing is the word!

This essay needs to be explored here in this thread!

And, how perfect that you (of all people) would instruct US in the Orthodox Way :) . . . as is said in the essay that you have provided the link for in the following:


It is basic Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit may act wherever and whenever. Presuming to constrain the activity of the Holy Spirit - to limit God Himself- is not the way. Orthodoxy recognizes and accepts the mandate to seek Truth and to follow the Holy Spirit wherever He leads, including in other religions or philosophies when his Truth is to be found there.[37] (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp#_edn37)


we can see that sometimes the right button can appear to be the wrong button (I think I can see that I'm going to need that disclaimer again here too ;)

And, while I don't see anyone giving old Stanley Grenz credit for that last line in the above, I do see many other Orthodox authors and books that are now on my hit list.

Thanks very much Jetavan. May God bless you.

In Christ,
Rick

RICK'S 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.

Disclaimer Copyright 2007 all rights reserved

[Nina]

In the end, our relationships and the dialogue we have with every human being are defined by our obligation to love in a way that includes everything and everyone, for this is the central core of Christianity: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). People who belong to another creed never lose their basic identity, their spiritual citizenship, so to speak. Even if they themselves choose to ignore it, they do not cease to be children of God, created in God's image, and consequently our brothers and sisters.

His Beatitude Anastasios, Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania

[Rick H.]

Thanks Nina. Here's another one I just read, on another site, right after yours . . .

“As to those who are good and kind but are not believers, we cannot and must not judge them. The ways of the Lord are inscrutable; let us leave these good people entirely to His judgment and to the grace of His Providence. He alone knows how and why He has built the argosy of humanity, and the small boat of each one of us, such as it is."

--St. Marcarios of Optina

[Nina]

The two quotes above (from Archbishop Anastasios and from St Macarios of Optina) are a given. As Christians we are obligated to act in such ways; and even more: it should not be an acquired behavior, but a nature for us.

Also I would add to the quote of St. Macarios (not that I am worthy of doing such thing, but for the sake of inclusion) that we can not judge and we must love even those who are not good and not kind (enemies, criminals, etc. Christians and non-Christians alike). Compassion is one of the highest virtues in Christianity. Many Saints imitate God's mercy and show compassion to all creatures without a single discrimination.

However, as Noah proclaimed God's word and invited people in the Arc (and most of the righteous and Saints have done the same) we should also invite people in the Arc: the Church. The fact that Noah invited those people, does not mean that he did not love them, or that he judged them. Judging is God's. However we need to invite like Noah, when he obeyed God's command to invite others in the Arc; we need to evangelize, because only so we obey the commandment of Christ: "Go and preach". We have to evangelize because we are beholden to Christ (Preaching/evangelizing can be also silent and is every breath we take and each second we are in corporeal existence - but this is another subject).

So we must not confuse the two different themes here: the one that is pronounced in the quotes of St. Macarios and Archbishop Anastasios (and in many other sayings in the Bible and Tradition) with the other theme which is that of missions. Not only Noah and others like him in the OT, but all Apostles, Martyrs, Saints evangelized: they became 'attendants of Christ'- which we are also called to become.

Studying other religions is a completely different theme which must not be confused with the two above. Because we can love and evangelize without studying other religions; and we can study other religions and not posses love, or not for the purpose of evangelizing. And of course the ideal example is that of the Saints: those who studied, or were familiar with other religions and not only converted many and continue to impact generations, but also sanctified themselves: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

[Peter Farrington]

I agree with you Nina, that love must be above all things.

For myself I have little or no interest in learning about other religions as if my Orthodox Church and Tradition were deficient.

But I do want to know something about other religions so that I can deal with people as people and not as, I don't know, targets for evangelism.

I think of St Paul in Athens. He studied the altars around the Areopagus and then used his knowledge to introduce the Gospel. He didn't do a PhD in Athenian Religion, but he did take time to learn something of their religious background.

I don't want much more than that, but it seems that sometimes that knowledge opens doors because it treats people with respect.

Peter

[Nina]

I agree with you Nina, that love must be above all things.

For myself I have little or no interest in learning about other religions as if my Orthodox Church and Tradition were deficient.

But I do want to know something about other religions so that I can deal with people as people and not as, I don't know, targets for evangelism.

I think of St Paul in Athens. He studied the altars around the Areopagus and then used his knowledge to introduce the Gospel. He didn't do a PhD in Athenian Religion, but he did take time to learn something of their religious background.

I don't want much more than that, but it seems that sometimes that knowledge opens doors because it treats people with respect.

Peter

Ok. This is another subject that you raise here dear Peter. I am not saying we are veering of from the scope of the thread. I am just trying to separate things we are talking about.

I also agree with what you say, because if studying other religions helps one in his apostolia (Christian missionary work) -this is excellent - and please by all means do it. I never maintained the opposite of this. We can peruse subjects which will benefit us first and others if God wills it, for His greater glory.

Personally I have studied a couple of religions (I do not have any degree in those) not for the purpose of missions though, but because of an inclination to read and study and not because Orthodoxy is not more than enough for me. Therefore, I am not saying this is wrong either. Although one must exercise caution because lack of discernment and of a very good spiritual father and etc. can be harmful spiritually.

While the religions I read about were only for personal intellectual edification, God brought me in two moments during my life during which I had to bear witness for Christ drawing from the knowledge about Orthodoxy and other religions. While one of the occasions was a benign one and it continued for some years (because that was a new friend I met and remained friends) in a form of a quest on his part for answers from Christianity and comparison to Christianity; the other occasion reached the point of: "Deny Christ! Accept ...! And only in this way you will get into ...!"

I was very blessed that I was firm and fervent about my Christ, but also to be able to bear witness in front of that person. There were also three other girls (I was seventeen and they were either same age, or a couple of years older) that he interviewed at the same time with me (because they placed people four by four and that is how we entered the interview room). When we entered the room, the interviewer asked us all what religion we belong to. Two of the girls were from his religion, one girl said that she was Christian previously, but... (and started blaspheming) and so she had converted to the religion of the interviewer.

My turn came and I said: "I am a Christian." He tried to convince me that I should convert because I am in such a wrong religion and of course there were a lot of blasphemies etc etc etc. Thank God I was very confident, composed and because God enlightened me with answers I told him what I knew. The girl who had converted from Christianity, tried a couple of times to support him and discredit Christianity, but the interviewer stopped and reprimanded her saying that if she interrupted me another time he would throw her out and also she will not win the placement we were there to be interviewed about. Hearing this I was reminded of a story I had read about how the hunter does not chase the goose that he shot and is dead (because the dead goose is his and can not escape) but goes after those flying and alive- at the end of the story there was an analogy for the souls the devil goes after, namely those that he does not have yet under control.

So the discussion continued and we spent very long time there. When he did not know what to tell me anymore because he exhausted everything he knew, and the aim to convert me proved futile, he told me: "I can see that you will never convert in my religion, but also I do not want to believe in Christ!" and I told him: "I came here for the interview and did not come to make you believe in Christ. Although when asked, it is my duty to bear witness for Christ. It is better to believe in Him now, because when He comes in His glory, it might be too late." And he started saying that Christ will not come and that I am wrong etc. I replied: "Christ will come!" but the interviewer said: "Do you want to bet on it?" and I replied: "I do not bet my God and my faith." This was the end because he said that he could not convince me to convert so the interview was over. :) I was very surprised that there was not a single question about the purpose of the interview. And actually I felt bad for the other girls because they did not get any chance to be interviewed about the position they wanted to get in. I had no idea that the interview would consist of religious recruiting/conversion because I would not have gone, although I wanted to badly to get in. Needless to say, I did not get in.

But if you notice, the interviewer said that he does not want to believe in Christ. I think that if the seed falls in an infertile ground, like Christ says, it will not bear fruit, even with all our knowledge and not matter what PHDs and religious comparative studies we have accomplished. Because it is not us, but God who works mysteriously. If it was not for God and the openness of the souls of the pagans, St. Paul could have had all the PHDs of the world and would have labored in vain (like it is said in the Bible - if God does not build the home, the workers labor in vain). Although like Saint Paul and other Saints we must do our job as Christians: Christian praxis (which is mission at the same time). What happens with the seed God knows and only He can help and have mercy. We need to place the seed and only God knows when and how it can start germinating.

I still think of that guy who interviewed us and the three girls who were there, and I hope and pray that may God have mercy on us both and work in His mysterious ways in our souls.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Nina

Yes I think you are very right that there comes a time when all we can and should do for someone is pray for them and for their salvation, because the time is not right for them to respond, or they have a hard heart that will not hear the Good News of life in Christ.

I think that I am only slowly learning to look for divine opportunities to be used by God each day, without feeling that the outcome depends on me, as if I should be acting in my own strength.

In regard to other religions, I think that basic knowledge is just another thing that God can use, as He wills, but as you say, in the end we are only seeking to co-operate with God and his purposes, we should not imagine that we can organise people into faith.

Best wishes to you

Peter

[Nina]

What I think is very beneficial and that Orthodox Christians should learn and teach their children are foreign languages. Especially when an Orthodox is interested in missions (abroad). People respond so well when you speak in their language. And it is a better terrain to meet the diverse in love. Comparative religious knowledge does not assure always an atmosphere of love, because it shakes the very foundations of a person's being: what he had believed up to that point. Also, when someone studies another religion for missionary purposes, it is in most of the cases to do apostolia, therefore he has to travel abroad. If so, there would be less misunderstandings because of translation, when he preaches.

[Peter Farrington]

Yes, I make a point of at least being able to greet people and say thank-you in their own language when I visit other countries.

I travel to Finland quite a lot and spent quite a lot of effort in learning pidgin Finnish so I could ask for things and get around in Finnish.

Again, as with knowing a little about other religions, I think it shows a proper respect for others as made in the image of God.

Peter

[Nina]

Yes, I make a point of at least being able to greet people and say thank-you in their own language when I visit other countries.

I travel to Finland quite a lot and spent quite a lot of effort in learning pidgin Finnish so I could ask for things and get around in Finnish.

That is very good.

I was at a mall in a metropolitan area here and there was a sales person, who owned the store I went into. He asked where I am from and suddenly we started talking and while conversing because of some relation during conversation, he kept saying to me phrases in many different foreign languages. I was so amazed because I thought he spoke all those languages. So I asked why and where did he learn them. He said: "It is very good for the business; because here is such a cosmopolitan area and when people hear me say something in their language they tend to buy and buy more." :) He knew the power of language and he did not mention anything about religion. :) Actually I have heard that religion is a no-no topic for people when they get together with family and friends as to avoid quarrel.



Again, as with knowing a little about other religions, I think it shows a proper respect for others as made in the image of God.Knowing about others in the correct sense and aspect, displays what we have in common which is much more powerful than the things that make us different: we are His children. But you do not have to convince me. :) I change continents often. And this is one of the reasons I like to see, meet and talk with other people and cultures. When I see different people, how they live, their culture etc. I feel so intrigued like I am in the first grade all over again. :)

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter, Dear Nina,

An interesting and edifying discussion. It really does point up, by example, what Fr. George Papademetriou meant when he wrote:

An Orthodox scholar recently observed that there are basically three views that Christians have taken with regard to non-Christian religions. The first is that the non-Christian will be damned because there is no salvation outside the visible Body of Christ, the Church, The second is that the non-Christian may be saved in spite the religion he practices, but only through the mercy of God. The third is that the non-Christian may be saved by means of the very religion he practices, for nonChristian religions may also contain saving truths. These three views parallel the three approaches identified elsewhere as exclusivism. inclusivism and cultural pluralism.

The claim of exclusivism has been rejected by many Orthodox scholars as untenable. This is not done in the interests of facilitating missionary endeavors or to foster world peace. Exclusiveness is rejected as a matter of Truth. The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism. Some Orthodox scholars espouse the view characterized as cultural pluralism but with qualifications. Relativism and syncretism are denied. And the view that Christianity is simply one of the world religions offering the blessing of salvation is not accepted. The focus, rather, is on the Spirit of God, the Paraclete, who leads us "Into all the truth," where in Christ all become one.

Nina's beautiful quotation mirrored Fr. George's comment that:

For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love.
And that can be said with full tolerance of others - as well as firm belief in the Faith delivered once for all.

In Christ,

John






[/QUOTE]

[Mourad Mankarios]

I would really like to pursue further the distinction made earlier between natural and spiritual virtues, the latter I am supposing being exclusive to Orthodox Christians and the former limited to unbelievers.

Matthew expressed that spirituality is life in the Holy Spirit of the Father which seems to affirm the above. However, how would this fit within the panentheistic Orthodox understanding in which we live and move and have our being within God and in which God gives life and subsistence to all.

In scripture we are also taught that, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." (James 1:17) Wouldn't this indicate that if any good virtue is to be found it is due to the presence of God's grace, whether a person believed it to be so or not.

In his book, Seeds of the Word, Orthodox Thinking on other Religions, Fr John Garvey speaks about how many of the fathers understood that although ancient faiths did not possess the fullness of faith possessed in the Orthodox Church they did possess a kind of shadow of that faith and what the fathers refered to as Seeds of the Word which hence also enabled them to appreciate better the fullness of Orthodoxy presented to them.

With regards to our study of and dialogue with such faiths perhaps St Paul's advice may be of good use here, "Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy-- meditate on these things." (Phil 4:8) All of the such for the purpose of enriching his understanding of his own faith and developing a greater appreciation for his own Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, what is the distinction between natural and spiritual virtues both practically and metaphysically?

[Nina]

Dear Peter, Dear Nina,

An interesting and edifying discussion. It really does point up, by example, what Fr. George Papademetriou meant when he wrote:

An Orthodox scholar recently observed that there are basically three views that Christians have taken with regard to non-Christian religions. The first is that the non-Christian will be damned because there is no salvation outside the visible Body of Christ, the Church, The second is that the non-Christian may be saved in spite the religion he practices, but only through the mercy of God. The third is that the non-Christian may be saved by means of the very religion he practices, for nonChristian religions may also contain saving truths. These three views parallel the three approaches identified elsewhere as exclusivism. inclusivism and cultural pluralism.

The claim of exclusivism has been rejected by many Orthodox scholars as untenable. This is not done in the interests of facilitating missionary endeavors or to foster world peace. Exclusiveness is rejected as a matter of Truth. The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism. Some Orthodox scholars espouse the view characterized as cultural pluralism but with qualifications. Relativism and syncretism are denied. And the view that Christianity is simply one of the world religions offering the blessing of salvation is not accepted. The focus, rather, is on the Spirit of God, the Paraclete, who leads us "Into all the truth," where in Christ all become one.Nina's beautiful quotation mirrored Fr. George's comment that:
For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love.And that can be said with full tolerance of others - as well as firm belief in the Faith delivered once for all.

In Christ,

John


No, no dear John. What I have said does not point to what you quote and say. Sorry. Also the quote from Archbishop Anastasios does not point to what you say. Here is the quote again for easier access :


In the end, our relationships and the dialogue we have with every human being are defined by our obligation to love in a way that includes everything and everyone, for this is the central core of Christianity: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+Jn+4%3A16)). People who belong to another creed never lose their basic identity, their spiritual citizenship, so to speak. Even if they themselves choose to ignore it, they do not cease to be children of God, created in God's image, and consequently our brothers and sisters.His Beatitude here says love.

You interpret it tolerance. But what is tolerance after all? Nothing. Here (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=tolerance)you can see that tolerance means nothing in our case. Or even worse: it can imply negativity. One tolerates something indigestible, unacceptable, toxic, unbearable and so on. If we say tolerance, then passively we are admitting that others are indeed something to be tolerated. Tolerance is a cloak-word that we use to cover feelings such as annoyance, inconvenience, nuisance, offense.

On the other hand we have love, what the quote of Archbishop Anastasios expresses so beautifully. Christ commands us to love, Saints also. Love is the deepest and most powerful feeling. Instead of enumerating the infinite dimensions of love and what it encompasses it is most important to mention that: Christ is Love. Love is our Christ, Who was crucified for us all. We are called to love like He did. I can tolerate a mosquito. However as a Christian I am called to love all humans without discrimination. People usually exclaim only for family: "I love you!" but they say "I have been tolerating my neighbor with his loud music for some time now, but enough is enough!" Tolerance is a lukewarm word and it neither expresses, nor it encompasses the highest mission Christ appointed us for: Love. This is what brothers and sisters that live on earth deserve: Love. They do not deserve tolerance, because remember we are all a family and 'children of God'. Tolerance is a dim light bulb vis-a-vis the Love which is the Uncreated Light.

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,

Thank you for the clarification.

When you write:

tolerance means nothing in our case I am puzzled, since the source from which I was quoting was a Greek Orthodox priest to whom it clearly meant quite a lot, as he writes:

We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love. This most significant and long-standing teaching of tolerance in Orthodoxy is emphasized in an encyclical letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Metrophanes III (1520-1580). This document was written to the Greek Orthodox in Crete (1568) following reports that Jews were being mistreated. The Patriarch states, "Injustice ... regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, is still injustice. The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these acts under the pretext that the injustice is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief."
he refers to:

the long-standing tradition of respect and tolerance for other faiths ... well stated by Archbishop Anastasios: "Being created in the image of God, every human being is our brother and sister

This tolerance based on Christian love seems to Fr. George, rather central to his identity as an Orthodox Christian operating in a pluralistic society; that was all I was referring to.

In Christ,

John

[Nina]

No, dear John. Tolerance is for those that bother us. Love is for those, who are dear to us. How can we say tolerate, if we really should love the people around us? If you do not understand, think Christ and what He did for us.

It is not said "For God tolerated the world so much that He gave His Son to be crucified for the world." but it is said: "For God loved the world so much that He gave His Son to be crucified for the world." Our lives' purpose is to be deified.

Love is the sublime, the ultimate. For instance, Saint Dionysios of Zakynthos (http://home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/dionysios.html), not only forgave the murderer of his brother, but he also hid him from the pursuers. This is love for fellow humans - there are endless such examples in Saints' lives. Love for everyone: not only for those who are heterodox, Orthodox, atheists, pagans, etc but it must include also those who commit the most heinous and monstrous sins against us.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Nina

Are you saying then that the Greek Orthodox priest is wrong and should not have written as he did?

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,

Fr. George's words seemed clear enough to me:

We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love
If you concur, we are in agreement; if you do not, then we are not and shall have to agree to disagree; but it isn't clear to me we do.

In Christ,


John

[Nina]

Tolerance is a patronizing word, that does not express love. Refer to my replies for the meaning and you will understand that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive.

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,

You write:

Tolerance is a patronizing word, that does not express love. Refer to my replies for the meaning and you will understand that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive.

It might be best if you look at what Fr. George writes here http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp so that you can see why a Greek Orthodox priest thinks that tolerance and love are not mutually exclusive. His definition of tolerance contains nothing about being patronising - nor did mine. Of course, one can disagree with him!

In Christ,

John

[Nina]

Dear John,

Since I am a Christ-ian, I rather agree with Christ who said "Love!".

In my words above the scope is not to show who is right, or wrong, but rather to express that I do not subscribe to the inferences about my posts you make in post # 62. My following posts were a subtle way of saying 'please do not put words in my mouth, or do not interpret my words in a convenient way for you'. I posted the quote of the Archbishop because it expresses what I believe: love. But you interpreted as tolerance. Tolerance is low. Love is sublime. As it is said in the Bible, we can not give a stone, to the ones who need bread. We are called for something higher, for giving love.

[Kornelius]

Dear Nina,

You write:


It might be best if you look at what Fr. George writes here http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp so that you can see why a Greek Orthodox priest thinks that tolerance and love are not mutually exclusive. His definition of tolerance contains nothing about being patronising - nor did mine. Of course, one can disagree with him!

In Christ,

John

John,

There is a chasm between tolerance and love. Tolerance dwells in the secular realm. Remember, humanists and secular politicians preach tolerance too and try to achieve it from a human perspective. Love, however, is divine and transcends tolerance. True love can only originate from Christ.

Fr. George says that "We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love." This does not mean that both terms are identical.

If you read Fr. George's article carefully, you will see that he does not use the terms tolerance and love as mutually inclusive. His understanding of tolerance is rather the opposite of persecution, but not love per se.

The evidence of that may be observed as Fr. George states: "This most significant and long-standing teaching of tolerance in Orthodoxy is emphasized in an encyclical letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Metrophanes III (1520-1580). This document was written to the Greek Orthodox in Crete (1568) following reports that Jews were being mistreated."

Another definition of tolearance as per Fr. George's article is one of social survival, a quid pro quo if you will for the sake of human self-preservation. Fr. George states: "Tolerance 'Implies a certain relationship of religious faith with truth in every concrete manifestation in the world, whether national, political or sociological'."

[John Charmley]

Dear Kornelius, Dear Nina,


Fr. George says that "We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love." This does not mean that both terms are identical.
Indeed, and I was unaware anyone had written anything to the contrary. The second quotation Kornelius offers is one I had already quoted to the same effect.

Nina had stated:

tolerance and love are mutually exclusive. Fr. George did not agree, nor did I.

Best wishes,

John

[Kornelius]

Dear Kornelius, Dear Nina,


Indeed, and I was unaware anyone had written anything to the contrary. The second quotation Kornelius offers is one I had already quoted to the same effect.

Nina had stated:
Fr. George did not agree, nor did I.

Best wishes,

John

John,

It seems that we are quoting the same verses from the same text, but drawing different conclusions. Each of us sees a different reality emerge from the text. This is the main problem encountered exegeting the text. Instead of drawing "out" what's in the text, or what's in the author's mind, we first instill "in" our beliefs and interpretations in the text and then draw them out - often subconsciously - as if they are the author's not our own. In other words we perform eisegesis not exegesis. I am not going to dwell on the article and say that you are doing the former while I am doing the latter. All I am saying is to make an effort to see this issue beyond the article since we disagree on that.

You see tolerance and love not as mutually exclusive, whereas I see tolerance as inferior, finite, and limited. It reminds one of the Old Testament dictum tolerate your neighbor but if he threatens you then it is "an eye for an eye." Love, however, is beyond that, it is "turning the other cheek."

In other words tolerance is a human enterprise, allowing others freedom of existence and expression, unless our own existence is threatened in which case we employ "an eye for an eye." Love is divine and is unaffected by the reaction of others. There is no cause and effect in love, for love is constant and unchangeable in spite of the causation.

[Peter Farrington]

Kornelius

You have not read John's post carefully because he explicitly and very clearly says..

Nina had stated:

Quotation:
tolerance and love are mutually exclusive.

Fr. George did not agree, nor did I.

So he does not agree that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive. It is Nina who has said that.

So you are disagreeing with Nina not John when you say ...

You see tolerance and love as mutually exclusive

[Kornelius]

Kornelius

So he does not agree that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive. It is Nina who has said that.

So you are disagreeing with Nina not John when you say ...

You see tolerance and love as mutually exclusive

I want to make clear that I do agree with Nina that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive. I see Peter that confusion might have risen from a sentence in my post where the function word not was previously missing (please refer to the edited post) but the rest of my post supported and reinforced the idea that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Some people define "toleration" as "acceptance", that is to say that one view or belief must be treated as equally valid as any other. This is, of course, not what toleration is.

I "tolerate" Hindus to worship as they desire without actively trying to stop their worship, I do not go into their temples and tell them they are "wrong". I don't go into Catholic fora and tell them why Papal infallibility is a flawed concept. That does not mean that I accept the teachings of Hinduism as equal to the teachings of the Church, or that I have to accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Nor do I have to remain forever silent on the issue when challenged in an appropriate and "loving" manner.

I LOVE my children, but I did NOT TOLERATE certain actions by them. I don't know that "toleration" is mutually exclusive from love, I don't see them as related in any way whatsoever.

[Peter Farrington]

I agree with Herman..

I don't think tolerance and love are mutually exclusive, but they are different things.

I can both love Hindus and tolerate their worship in my town. These are different things.

I can tolerate someone smoking in a restaurant but I don't have to love smoking, just love the smoker.

And Kornelius..

Well that is an important 'not' that you missed out. I have to disagree with both you and Nina then because as Herman says..

I don't know that "toleration" is mutually exclusive from love, I don't see them as related in any way whatsoever.

Peter

[Kornelius]

I don't know that "toleration" is mutually exclusive from love, I don't see them as related in any way whatsoever.

Peter

Peter,

Since you agree with these words, then you must agree with me all along, for this is what I have been trying to say throughout my posts, that love is exclusive of tolerance for they are not in the same dimension, therefore there is no way to relate them for as I have emphasized before tolerance dwells in the secular world, whereas love dwells in the divine. Anyways, I will not repeat myself anymore.

[Michael Stickles]

Sounds like there has been a vocabulary problem here.

Kornelius, it sounds like when you say "tolerance and love are mutually exclusive" you mean it in the sense of essence, meaning "tolerance and love cannot be seen to share any of the same essence; you cannot claim this part of love is the same as that part of tolerance, since they belong to diferent realms and do not overlap" (clumsy phrasing, but I can't think of a better way to word it offhand).

Peter and Herman, it sounds like when you read "tolerance and love are mutually exclusive" you see it in a logical sense, as meaning "tolerance and love cannot co-exist; if tolerance is there then love cannot be, or if love is there, then tolerance cannot be" and that's what you're disagreeing with.

So, it looks like the current problem is not whether you agree or disagree; it really looks like you're not even talking about the same thing, even if the same words are being used.

[Peter Farrington]

Kornelius

I don't 'have to' do agree with you on this because I don't.

The Scriptures are filled with injunctions to 'bear with one another', 'forbear one another' etc etc all of which are dictionary synonyms for some aspects of tolerance and toleration.

I do not agree at all that toleration is only a secular value. It can be, but it is also an Apostolic value. "Bear with one another in love" clearly shows as far as I can see, that toleration is something we do with or without the virtue of charity. It is in this sense that the two are not related. It is possible to be tolerant with or without love, it is possible to love with or without toleration. It all depends on the circumstances.

It is entirely possible to say "I can tolerate his swearing though I find it painful". That is not 'secular'. I can tolerate his swearing with of without love depending on how Christian I am, but I do not believe it is un-Christian to say that 'I tolerate his swearing' rather than 'I love his swearing'. Because the first is true the second is false. In both cases I should love the one who is swearing.

This is entirely Apostolic - 'bear with his swearing in love'

You and Nina are setting up a false dichotomy and then insisting it must be true.

[Kornelius]

Kornelius, it sounds like when you say "tolerance and love are mutually exclusive" you mean it in the sense of essence, meaning "tolerance and love cannot be seen to share any of the same essence; you cannot claim this part of love is the same as that part of tolerance, since they belong to diferent realms and do not overlap" (clumsy phrasing, but I can't think of a better way to word it offhand).

Thank you Mike! Indeed I am referring to the ontological difference between the two of them.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kornelius,

I suspect by now everyone is as tired of this as I am, but in a last attempt to clarify I shall quote from the foregoing posts:
Fr. George wrote:

For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love

It was that - 'as a concomitant' - with which I was agreeing; at no point have I written that the two are the same.

Nina's perfectly reasonable point was:

But what is tolerance after all? Nothing. Here you can see that tolerance means nothing in our case. She went on to amplify it thus:

tolerance and love are mutually exclusive.

You and Nina may well be correct, and it may be that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive; that is a perfectly tenable position; but it is not the one stated in Fr. George's article. To say love and tolerance are 'mutually exclusive' is to deny that the one is a concomitant of the other. You and Nina may well be right, but that makes me and Fr. George wrong - as we may well be.


In Christ,

John

[Nina]

You and Nina may well be correct, and it may be that tolerance and love are mutually exclusive; that is a perfectly tenable position; but it is not the one stated in Fr. George's article.
In Christ,

John

Exactly dear John! That is what I have been trying to tell you since post #64. That the quote from the Archbishop Anastasios which expresses what I believe, does not have any relation with your interpretation of our words in your post # 62.

If we elaborate the point of Kornelius and mine, you will see that it is meant for what we are called to be: Saints. Therefore to have love.

[Michael Stickles]

Actually, I don't think we need to assume that anyone involved has to be "wrong" here.

I looked up "concomitant", and it does not seem to imply that the attendant thing necessarily accompanies the primary thing. So, exclusivity as Kornelius and Nina were using it does not seem to contradict the possibility of concomitancy.

So, we can say that love and tolerance are mutually exclusive in the sense that neither has to appear in conjunction with the other. Love can exist without tolerance; tolerance can exist without love. They are in relation to different things: tolerance to externals (behavior, attitude, etc), love to the internal (the person as a person).

Now, when I look at Fr. George's statement, maybe I'm wrong here, but I read it as experiential, not dogmatic. That is, not that one has to accept as a belief that tolerance is a necessary part of love, but rather that one must embrace the practice of tolerance and bring it alongside Christian love as a lesser but still important partner. While they are different, and in that sense "exclusive", they become complementary.

This then creates a synergy where Christian love can elevate tolerance beyond the secular, making it something it cannot be on its own. Tolerance does not become love, or even part of love, but is brought into the service of love. It becomes a vehicle to communicate love to those who might not receive it in other ways.

[Nina]

I looked up "concomitant", and it does not seem to imply that the attendant thing necessarily accompanies the primary thing.

Exactly, dear Mike.

And if we notice the case of the Holy Martyrs, which are the par excellence example of Orthodox Christians versus people of other religions, we would see that everything revolves and happens because of love. Love for the neighbor, love for the Church, which as Elder Porphyrios states, leads to love for God. He says that without love for the neighbor we can not proceed to, or possess love for God. We have many examples when a holy martyr goes in front of the ruler and professes his faith. His purpose? Love. For neighbor, Church and God. Does he tolerate the pagan ruler, or his people there in this case? Tolerance does not enter here at all. The martyr loves that is why he is there, that is why he gives himself and accepts death.


Love can exist without tolerance; tolerance can exist without love. They are in relation to different things: tolerance to externals (behavior, attitude, etc), love to the internal (the person as a person).Mike, you do justice to the subject by separating the issues because it is so multifaceted. Here the Holy Fathers take that notion on a higher level they say: "Hate the sin [behavior, attitudes can be milder, or strong expressions of the root sin], but love the sinner!" Fathers know that we are weak, so they try to elevate us even more by urging us in this way. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

P.S So it is not misunderstood 'hate the sin' from what I know means do not commit the same sin yourself; distance yourself from that sin.

[Theophrastus]

I'm not sure if anyone can 'tolerate' any more of 'toleration', but perhaps a deeper look at the root meaning of 'tolerate' is in order. On toleration:


1517, "permission granted by authority, license," from M.Fr. tolération (15c.), from L. tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing, supporting, enduring," from toleratus, pp. of tolerare "to tolerate, lit. "to bear" (see extol). Meaning "forbearance, sufferance" is from 1582.

It's interesting that "sufferance", or suffering, is part of the wider net of meanings; "to tolerate" as "to suffer" opens up a whole new world:


c.1225, "to undergo, endure" (pain, death, punishment, judgment, grief), from Anglo-Fr. suffrir, from O.Fr. sufrir, from V.L. *sufferire, variant of L. sufferre "to bear, undergo, endure, carry or put under," from sub "up, under" + ferre "to carry" (see infer).

If toleration is expanded in this way, then toleration becomes the process of enduring, of bearing. And if love is the ultimate form of caring, then how is this caring made manifest, without enduring and bearing the discomfort (especially to our 'egos' -- another loaded term, for sure) that such caring produces?

Of course, 'tolerate' these days connotes a rather superficial 'put-up-with-it-ness', but as 'endurance' it becomes one of the humanistic virtues that, it would seem, plays a role in the visible manifestation of the theological virtue of agape-love.

[For a neat account of the Indo-European roots of 'tolerate', see this (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE524.html).]

[Owen Jones]

This quote from John Cassian crops up occasionally as the quote of the day:

If we want to set our lives aright and find peace, it is not the tolerant attitude of others that will do it for us. It will come about, rather, by our learning how to show them compassion. If we try to avoid this hard struggle of compassion by preferring a withdrawn and solitary life, we will simply drag our unhealed obsessions into solitude with us. We might well have hidden them; we certainly will not have eliminated them. If we do not seek liberation from our obsessions, then becoming more withdrawn and less social may even make us more blind to them, since it can mask them.
- St John Cassian

[Michael Stickles]

Nina -- I think you missed my point.


We have many examples when a holy martyr goes in front of the ruler and professes his faith. His purpose? Love. For neighbor, Church and God. Does he tolerate the pagan ruler, or his people there in this case? Tolerance does not enter here at all. The martyr loves that is why he is there, that is why he gives himself and accepts death.
...
Here the Holy Fathers take that notion on a higher level they say: "Hate the sin [behavior, attitudes can be milder, or strong expressions of the root sin], but love the sinner!" Fathers know that we are weak, so they try to elevate us even more by urging us in this way. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

The first tolerance you mention is a social tolerance -- "live and let live" -- which really is irrelevant to love. In the second, you took the "externals" which tolerance addresses in terms of sin. However, the externals that we tolerate in love can encompass far more than the fruits of sin.

Jetavan's post expressed it perfectly:


If toleration is expanded in this way, then toleration becomes the process of enduring, of bearing. And if love is the ultimate form of caring, then how is this caring made manifest, without enduring and bearing the discomfort (especially to our 'egos' -- another loaded term, for sure) that such caring produces?

As just one example of how this can apply -- If my neighbor is a likeable guy, I can love him without tolerance entering in. But if he's kind of crotchety, with a grating voice, mannerisms that remind me of all my childhood tormentors, and body odor that he can't smell but that almost knocks me out, then to love him in any personal way is going to require a tremendous amount of tolerance (i.e., endurance). I will need to overcome my impulse to treat him as intolerable because of how uncomfortable it is to be around him.

[Peter Farrington]

Amen, Mike!

That is how I understand the relationship between tolerance and love.

And as I posted earlier, it is part of the Apostolic teaching.

Bear with one another in love

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,

One thing to keep in mind however is that according to how many Orthodox use these words, tolerance is a psychological attitude while love is a virtue. Tolerance can come close at times to being a synonym for patience; but then again it also includes many modern messages about overlooking differences which is quite different. Thus for all its possible meanings a tolerant person is someone who places human commonality above all other values. This again shows its closeness to a psychological attitude as it is based on a set of common values.

Love however is a virtue, ie a grace that comes from Christ. It can perhaps involve a kind of tolerance, but only if by this we mean patience, long-suffering, mercy, etc.

On the other hand though that tolerance still keeps its own modern meaning is shown by the fact that Christian love can be very intolerant. This is so especially of those choices we make which involve sin and self-destruction but which the world teaches is just another 'valid life choice.'

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

I wonder if the guys in the Ecumenical Councils felt this way when they were splitting hairs on the definition of the meanings of words to combat heresy and the like.

What was the word that only changed by 1 letter and completely changed the meaning of Christ's essence?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I wonder if the guys in the Ecumenical Councils felt this way when they were splitting hairs on the definition of the meanings of words to combat heresy and the like.

What was the word that only changed by 1 letter and completely changed the meaning of Christ's essence?

homoousios & homoiousios "one in nature" & "similar in nature".

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Well, I am very glad we are not dealing with something a crucial as that!

Perhaps what Mike Stickles has to say here in his recent post on the 'Eucharistic Crisis' thread (#33) has some relevance to us here? It is, as he says, so easy to think that others use words the same way we do, and perhaps necessary for us all to realise that sometimes it is not so.

In terms of the topic of this thread, tolerance is not a bad way of approaching other religions - as long as it is a concomitant of Christian love for the other person who is made in the image of God; or is that going too far?


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:



In terms of the topic of this thread, tolerance is not a bad way of approaching other religions - as long as it is a concomitant of Christian love for the other person who is made in the image of God; or is that going too far?

To illustrate the point made in my previous posts that tolerance is not equivalent to the virtue of love: yes, we must always show love to all men.

But no, tolerance is not always called for. In the case of other religions for example when these religions respect the moral culture of our society then they deserve respect and indeed legal protection in human rights.

But when these religions do not respect or even aggressively undermine this moral culture then they should not be tolerated.

Orthodox history shows us a number of examples of this as precedents. For example in Russia, St Alexander Nevsky fought off the Teutonic Knights while St Sergei of Radonezh blessed the battle of Kulikovo Pole which fought off the Tatars (granted that at this time the Tatars were not yet Muslim, but still they always represented a threatening social force to Russia; and when they were finally driven out by the Russians they had converted to Islam & this was definitely seen as a war against a threatening religion). In both cases culture and religion played central roles in determining whether the battle was called for or not. In other words here we see examples of what in our modern age might be termed an intolerant struggle: ie at this time it was determined that certain religious & cultural forces should be allowed no place within Russian society.

To this day within Russia there is a very different understanding of other cultures & religions. Basically the welfare of society is tantamount and this is identified with certain specific values. Very different, and disorienting for a westerner at first, is the idea that 'openness' is not a moral value but rather a negation of it. Most Russians question the western concept of tolerance and find it to be destructive of any moral sense within society. They indeed wonder how there can be a society at all if it is grounded on tolerance. (which is different from tolerance towards all those who are found within the given social polity and its values. Russians are very used to this kind of tolerance and have been practicing it for many centuries.)

In any case my own personal thoughts about this (and they are only personal)
is that indeed there is something potentially fatal in our modern concept of tolerance. (note I say our modern concept of tolerance). I believe that what lies behind this is largely what has led to our present moral crisis. If not grappled with I would suspect it will only deepen the crisis. Indeed we now see those who are moral hegemonists take advantage of this flaw in our society, in effect saying if you are really tolerant then you will allow intolerant values. To this there is no real answer unless we see that tolerance in itself is not a moral value. For to just be tolerant of all things is to give all things equal value- which ultimately means there is no moral value. Such a stance however is to takes ones stand on oneself as cast adrift in the nothingness of the self-created universe. It also is to insist that others support us in this endeavour. We are a culture which insists on the right to have the blind led by the blind. The answer however is not to replace tolerance with intolerance- rather it is to learn how to seek truth.

What touches Orthodoxy also touches society. This has been a crucial insight of our Holy Fathers for many centuries but it is especially so now. Spiritually we understand that Christ's Truth must be sovereign in our lives in order to live. But we barely glimpse this or consider it on the social level; if we do it becomes a political exercise. Instead we have to recognize to the extent we can what we are doing to our fellow humanity by insisting on a world that is based on the negation which is tolerance as a value in itself. Not only do we lack the moral and spiritual clarity to know how to respond to the evil which has threatened to overwhelm many societies in the past ( in denial of all history and sense of God's providence we now act as if we will be the first society since the beginning of creation not to be tested in this way); we also unknowingly & actively contribute to the destruction of those around us.

The answer to this is not to become intolerant. Rather it is to develop an understanding of truth as something which needs loving with an exclusive love.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for these reflections, which point up the imbalance in our society between what we can do and what we ought to be doing.

The new moralism, with its seductively titled key words of 'justice', 'peace' and 'conservation', reflects outwards rather than inwards. Who defines 'justice'? What is 'peace' other than the absence of war? Why are we 'conserving'? The core message of Christ was 'the kingdom of God'; too often the world (at best) reduces this to its own definition of the values of that kingdom; recreating man in his own image, rather than in the image of God.

In such a universe it would seem to be a calculation of consequences which determines morality; the standard of absolute good is undermined before being abandoned. In such a universe the state seeks to marginalise Christianity, indeed, it needs to do so, since our values are at odds with such relativism. Liberty, the key value for Americans (but not only for them) presupposes freedom of choice in religion, which means that the State must become 'neutral'. This was the position eventually adopted, with reluctance, by Gladstone in the nineteenth century. But our own times show how 'neutrality' elides seamlessly into hostility whenever Christians express their core values.

In the UK one can no longer, with 'freedom' assert the traditional view that homosexuality is an objective disordering in the structure of human existence; one wonders how long before there is a challenge to the view of the Church that it does not have the right to ordain women to the priesthood?

That is why when you write:

when these religions respect the moral culture of our society then they deserve respect and indeed legal protection in human rights I am less optimistic; I am not sure that my own religion respects the 'moral culture' of this society - and I am pretty sure that if it does not, it is for very good reasons, since that culture is 'moral' where it echoes its Christian foundations; and in some parts of society, the echo is now very faint.

The world comes from a 'rational' source - the Reason of God; the 'rationality' which atheists call in support is to us, surely, a denial of that reason? That is one of the reasons our politics finds no solutions to the problems of this world; its rationality is profoundly irrational.

As one source I read recently put it:

Only that creative reason which has manifested itself as love in the crucified God can truly show us what life is.

I think it was Kant who wrote that although we could not know God, there was no possibility of truly moral action without the idea of God. The contemporary attempt to carry on human affairs whilst excluding God has lead to a moral abyss. But perhaps that is how it needs to be for a while? Tolerating the intolerable, and hating the sin whilst loving the sinner.

In Christ,

John

[Michael Stickles]

In any case my own personal thoughts about this (and they are only personal) is that indeed there is something potentially fatal in our modern concept of tolerance. (note I say our modern concept of tolerance). ... For to just be tolerant of all things is to give all things equal value- which ultimately means there is no moral value.

I had forgotten to allow for the fact that the modern concept of tolerance is an almost unlimited tolerance. A true tolerance has to have limits. My background is in engineering, so I tend to include the engineering definition of tolerance without thinking about it:


In engineering, tolerance is the permissible limit of variation in 1) a physical dimension, 2) a measured value or property of a material, manufactured object, system, or service, or 3) other measured values (such as temperature, humidity, etc).
Dimensions, properties, or conditions may vary within certain practical limits without significantly affecting functioning of equipment or a process. Tolerances are specified to allow reasonable leeway for imperfections and inherent variability without compromising performance.

Note that there cannot be a single standard for "how much" tolerance is OK; it depends on too many factors, both in engineering and in relationships. But in all things, there is some "permissible limit" to tolerance. For unimportant things (say, the hair color of a friend or acquaintance) tolerance limits can be very wide; for critical things (say, the moral integrity of someone in leadership) tolerance limits should be quite strict.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:


I am not sure that my own religion respects the 'moral culture' of this society - and I am pretty sure that if it does not, it is for very good reasons, since that culture is 'moral' where it echoes its Christian foundations; and in some parts of society, the echo is now very faint.

Which is one reason I have trouble writing or thinking about this clearly. Our culture as a culture or society is based on some set of common values originating from Christianity. (I recently read a book The Heavenly City of the 18th Century Philosophers which convincingly argued that despite the attempted secularization of the 18th c Philosophes, they were unsuccessful in abandoning some of the most fundamental insights of Christianity.)

But yet these values are now rapidly diminishing as social & cultural values (has anyone heard of or read this article by David B Hart called Christ and Nothing (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HartChrist.shtml)?).

How can we hold on to something which we give less and less substance?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks for this Mike:



In engineering, tolerance is the permissible limit of variation in 1) a physical dimension, 2) a measured value or property of a material, manufactured object, system, or service, or 3) other measured values (such as temperature, humidity, etc).

and also:


Dimensions, properties, or conditions may vary within certain practical limits without significantly affecting functioning of equipment or a process. Tolerances are specified to allow reasonable leeway for imperfections and inherent variability without compromising performance.

The first thing that comes to mind here is that you are referring to the nature of things. This is also an important concept theologically for it denotes the purpose of each thing which is written into it.

As many have commented from a theological perspective the relativistic theories of our time denies the specific nature of things. Nature instead is an amorphous power that in terms of what we are talking would always be passing beyond a "permissible limit of variation".

The relativistic universe- the totally intolerant, er sorry... untolerant universe!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

You write:

How can we hold on to something which we give less and less substance?

Faith is fundamental to our Christian existence, the purpose of which is to attain our destiny and realise the humanity which is created in His image; through our encounter with the Risen Lord we become one with Him who made us. This is a transformation we do not encounter in either Buddhism or the moral relativism of contemporary western society; this is a hope we have - and if we hold to the promise we have been given, the other things will pass, but He will not.

In the beginning was the Word - and His Spirit guides us even now if we will but hearken to Him. St. Paul's letter to the Romans speaks directly to our situation. As he writes:

by their wickedness [they] suppress the truth [Romans 1:18]
Yes, modern man resists the truth that demands a submission expressed in giving glory and thanks to God. [Romans 1:21] St. Paul saw that the decadence of that society was the natural consequence of denying the truth. If man prefer his own ego, his pride and his comfort to the demands made on him by the truth, he ends up adoring not the Trinity but the image of himself. But, like Caliban in The Tempest he cannot bear to see his own reflection in the mirror society holds up for him - a civilisation of death is formed. Romans 1:21-32 is an uncanny snapshot of this society - and St. Paul's message to it is his message to us.

The Church is the witness to that message - the hospital for the cure for the sickness - and if we hold on to these truths and to the hope they represent, we know the gates of hell will not prevail.

In Christ,

John