On acquiring an Orthodox mindset [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Rick H.

02-07-2007, 12:43 PM

On Discovering and 'Acquiring an Orthodox Mindset'

A Common Ground:
"A Search for Orthodox Phronema"

Dear All,

I have been sitting here this morning staring at this blank screen, with the cursor pulsing away, trying to find a starting place for our new thread. As we begin this search for Orthodox Phronema (as it relates to 'acquiring an Orthodox mindset' and 'an Orthodox epistemology'), I have been trying to come up with a good means, right off the bat, that will help us get the better of self-centered, particularist ways of thinking--an instrument that might move us from the particularist thinking which seems to dominate so many of the discussions here. Knowing, as has been said before, 'In Christian theology particularist thinking is schismatic thinking,' and:

"'Particularist' is the name we give to isolating, sectional thinking, which is hence self-complacent and anxiously self-justifying. Because it only recognizes its own premises and only wants to have its own conclusions accepted."

Who would not want to get away from particularist schismatic thinking and work from within a truly historic Orthodox Christian Catholicity? Who would not want to find both one's knowing and one's being positioned squarely on this Common Ground?

Who would not want to move away from the innovations which have corrupted even an accurate portrayal of the Patristic mindset, by the modern spirit of our age? Who who is even remotely familiar with the Phronema of the Orthodox Church would argue with the following statement:

A recovery of a Patristic mindset is essential to the Body of Christ's resistance to these innovations that have been inspired by the modern Zeitgeist.

And, this is the objective of this retrieval effort, to recover a Patristic mindset so that from this place, this common ground, a clear cut fire line may be established.

Much in the same way Owen Jones has said recently:

Tradition is a term that has suffered significant corruption, so perhaps we ought to just junk it.

and, then as he went on to suggest the word "phronema" as a possible alternative, it is my hope that we can consider just exactly what has suffered significant corruption though such things as 'modern' innovations. Whereby, in the End, we may be brought back collectively to the Beginning . . . to an authentic Orthodox spirituality that is represented not so much by 'radically different schools of thought,' of the present day, and definitely not by the 'particularism' which runs rampant in the churches today; but instead, to a true community which finds a Common Ground not in cliches, or an agreeing to disagree, or worse yet, in an antibourgeois rebellion of the bourgeoisie; but, in a genuine, and an historic Orthodox Catholic Phronema!

And, as we begin our discussion of the Orthodox mind, or acquiring an Orthodox mindset, I would like to suggest from the outset that "there is a great deal of room for intellectual questioning and philosophical reflection in the Orthodox tradition," as another has said. Because, in the past, there has been much negative reaction to intricate philosophical investigations and endeavors as it relates to what some perceive to be the Orthodox Way.
And, here is a prime example of both the ignorance of and the rewriting of the History of the Orthodox Church by the modern spirit of Orthodoxy! While this is and has become a part of the History of Christian Thought (it's well documented even here), it represents both a decline and a distortion that needs to be corrected. A true Orthodox phronema hopes to move beyond mere affirmations and negations, but Orthodoxy has never been in opposition to intellectual questioning and philosophical reflection. But, how many even on this site have made so many such passionate and dogmatic statements to the contrary in the 'name' of the "Holy Orthodox Tradition." How easy it would be to move through recent posts and the archives and make this point in a crystal clear way.

But, this is just one example of how the word 'Tradition' has been corrupted, and how the Patristic/Orthodox mindset has been so very misrepresented by the modern spirit of our age. And, this does matter because I see some of my fellow recent converts struggling to the point of anxiety at times with this issue. I also see some who would be Orthodox wrestling with this critical concept that we are addressing in this thread. But, possibly, most of all my heart goes out to some of the more long-time converts as well as the cradle Orthodox who only *know* what they have been taught to think. But, God willing, for all, via both Patristic Theology and Monastic Study, a very bright light of clarity will be manifest here as we study and learn together in our search for both an Orthodox phronema and an Orthodox spirituality.

So with this initial post in place, may we paraphrase a point by Lossky (as he is quoting Barth in a positive light believe it or not), as we simply say, may we find that a true Common Ground, a genuine Orthodox mindset is not manufactured or made, but we discover IT.

In Christ,
Rick

John Charmley

02-07-2007, 01:32 PM

Dear Rick,

Thank you for proposing a thread that will, one hopes, bring together some of the themes that have been present in other discussions on this site.

You raise an important theme. Much though one recoils from it, comparisons do get made between cultic brainwashing and 'acquiring an Orthodox mindset'. More than one of my friends has expressed concern about this, and one of our own brothers here has put it well when he writes
the unholy thought came to me that this cultivation of prayer, going to church, sacraments, good works & good thoughts etc may "simply" be a form of self-conditioning: the more I "do" it, the more I come to think it's "real"; but I may be deluding myself - if I set out to, I could probably end up convincing myself that I'm a chicken...just live in a shed and feed on grains, start clucking and sit on eggs.
If breaking our will is actually a form of 'self-conditioning' then all we do is add to the modern tendency to elevate ourself, even as we say we are doing the opposite.

So, perhaps we need to start with something like this from St. Paul:

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist(1 Cor 8:5-6).
Starting with Him, where we shall, through prayer, the Sacraments and Grace end up, might not be a bad idea?

In Christ,

John

Celinda Grace

02-07-2007, 02:27 PM

Starting with Him, where we shall, through prayer, the Sacraments and Grace end up, might not be a bad idea?

One thing that has impresses me about the Orthodoxy mindset is the whole approach that centers eternity in the here and now. The fact that it focuses on the Incarnation in which the eternal God made Himself visible to the human senses so that we could relate to Him even in our blind and fallen state.

The priest, the Eucharist, the icons, the liturgy --in and through each Christ becomes visible in a unique way. Maybe we could talk about exactly how we see Christ in and through each of these.

Peter Farrington

02-07-2007, 03:13 PM

I recently read a good article by +Hilarion which states that we need to read all theology in context, and not use any authors as the source of proof texts, whether for good or ill.

He goes beyond this to suggest that in our modern context we also need a neo-patristics which expresses the patristic deposit in a manner that the modern world can understand and to address modern problems and issues.

He stresses very much the need to get inside the fathers, and I think that in his view acquiring an Orthodox mindset requires both being immersed in the Fathers - understood in their contexts - and also living in our own time and addressing that Orthodox mindset to the modern context.

It was a good paper and I was interested to see that a Russian bishop took that view.

Peter

John Charmley

02-07-2007, 03:49 PM

Dear Peter,

Many thanks. I suspect it abuts onto the themes Rick, and Celinda, have raised thus far.

It is all too easy (not least since the threat is so widespread) to think that our task is just to preserve what we have inherited and preserve it from the contagion of this age; this can lead to what John McGuckin has described as the perception of the Orthodox as 'chaotic, undisciplined and devious', not to mention reactionary. All these loaded words are part of a long antagonism in which, for those of in the West, echoes of Gibbon's caricature can be read even today as though they were sober history. Such perceptions come, at least in part, from those who see only the need to preserve what we have inherited. This is not to say that that is not vital; but is to imply it is not all we do.

In the last of his Theological Orations St. Gregory Nazianzen writes:

Here, growth towards perfection comes through additions. In this way, the old covenant made clear proclamations of the Father, a less definite one of the Son. The new covenant made the Son manifest and gave us a glimpse of the Spirit's Godhead. At the present time, the Spirit resides among us, giving us a clearer manifestation of himself than before.

He is still present, He still manifests; wisdom did not cease when the last of the ancient Fathers laid down his pen.

Perhaps, here, the presence of converts is a two-edged swords. Many converts to Orthodoxy are conservative in disposition, and have often lost, or declined to continue, a struggle with the proponents of liberal change in their old denomination; so perhaps they come feeling hostile to all notions of 'development', having seen its results from whence they came.

But how many of those who, as Rick points out, combat notions they dislike by reference to tradition or to the Fathers, actually have access to the fulness of the Patristic tradition; to what extent do people take from those Fathers they know ideas which support notions they already had. I have been reading 'the Fathers' for twenty five years in a very unsystematic way, but all I come away with in terms of any 'scopos' is that patristic theology is pluriform, although always Orthodox.

How we think and live patristically is another question.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

03-07-2007, 04:46 PM

Dear Celinda, I appreciated very much what you wrote here:

One thing that has impresses me about the Orthodoxy mindset is the whole approach that centers eternity in the here and now. The fact that it focuses on the Incarnation in which the eternal God made Himself visible to the human senses so that we could relate to Him even in our blind and fallen state.

The priest, the Eucharist, the icons, the liturgy --in and through each Christ becomes visible in a unique way. Maybe we could talk about exactly how we see Christ in and through each of these.

Perhaps one of the distinguishing characteristics of an Orthodox phronema is the engagement in creation from the perspective of union with the eternal God. This marks out all aspects of life as eternal in dimension: even the most finite of things breathes of an engagement with eternity, as the creation of a God who draws the temporal into his own eternital life.

Acquiring a 'mindset' in accordance with this reality -- that in the incarnation the created and the Uncreated are united -- transforms the approach to the cosmos around us. You raise a few specific instances in which this phronema might be explored. I've only time to briefly look at two for the moment:

The priest. The priest is paramountly the icon of this union; the minister of the communion of God and man first and foremost in the mysteries of the Church (e.g. the eucharist), as also through the pastoral work of Christ brought to each person. It is only with a sense of the incarnate communion of eternal and temporal, heavenly and earthly, this priestly role makes sense as such; else it is chiefly the role of a teacher or instructor.

The icons. Here again, the veneration of icons is tied directly to the incarnational reality of God-made-man. The whole focus of the iconoclastic debates in the seventh-eighth centuries was incarnational, particularly in the iconodule response to the criticisms of images and their use. God has sanctified matter from its very creation, and shown the fullness of that sanctified potential in his taking material flesh in the incarnation, and in that flesh working salvation. The icon is part of the same reality of matter bearing the life and grace of God.

INXC, Matthew

John Charmley

05-07-2007, 12:28 AM

Dear Matthew,

Perhaps one of the distinguishing characteristics of an Orthodox phronema is the engagement in creation from the perspective of union with the eternal God
Perhaps, although I have Catholic friends who would find no problem saying the same thing about a Catholic mindset. Perhaps there are some features of the method of doing so which are uniquely Orthodox, or perhaps you mean it in a way that would make it specifically Orthodox; but as it stands, it might distinguish an Orthodox phronema in the sense of marking it out - but it is unclear that, as stated, it distinguishes it from other Christian mindsets.

So, I guess that I am wondering if you could elaborate a little and help focus us here?

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

05-07-2007, 04:12 AM

Dear John, you wrote:

Perhaps, although I have Catholic friends who would find no problem saying the same thing about a Catholic mindset. Perhaps there are some features of the method of doing so which are uniquely Orthodox, or perhaps you mean it in a way that would make it specifically Orthodox; but as it stands, it might distinguish an Orthodox phronema in the sense of marking it out - but it is unclear that, as stated, it distinguishes it from other Christian mindsets.

I was actually not intending to make a comparison with any other group or tradition; my intention was to mark out this as a distinctive characteristic of an Orthodox phronema. It is possible my on-the-fly choice of vocabulary caused confusion on this -- use of 'distinguishing' when I might rather have said 'distinctive'. But I certainly did not intend, nor use, the word 'unique'.

I find it tiring that so regularly topics are brought back to comparing x or y with x and y in other traditions; that surely wasn't my intention here. And it's not really the intention of any discussions on this forum. As I find myself reminding more regularly of late, such discussions are valid and important, but Monachos.net doesn't exist for them. There are other fora that do; Monachos.net has its own, different, focus.

Within the topic of 'acquiring an Orthodox mindset', I do think it distinctive of the phronema of the Church that it focusses on 'the engagement in creation from the perspective of union with the eternal God'.

I'm quite happy to elaborate on this in dialogue with others, if some aspect of what I (or anyone else) has written is unclear, or could be fleshed out further. Do let me know. And I shall try to answer properly (i.e. when I've not just returned from an all-night vigil for St Alban, protomartyr of Britain!).

INXC, Matthew

John Charmley

05-07-2007, 12:02 PM

Dear Matthew,

You write

I find it tiring that so regularly topics are brought back to comparing x or y with x and y in other traditions; that surely wasn't my intention here. And it's not really the intention of any discussions on this forum. As I find myself reminding more regularly of late, such discussions are valid and important, but Monachos.net doesn't exist for them.
Indeed, but the choice of the word 'distinctive' could have been taken to imply unique, and it was not unuseful to make clear that Orthodoxy is not the only 'tradition' which could concur in focusing in the manner you describe.

The comparing of x with y is necessary only in so far as it provides a contextualisation. The number of times that something has been described as though it were uniquely Orthodox when it may be part of a wider Christian heritage intrigues me. As an historian it is a not unfamiliar mindset - but that road definitely leads beyond the TOU - so back to our subject.

If, as I understand, the Greek word phronema derives from the substantive phren, then, in its Doric form, phran it denoted the diaphragm of the chest - the dwelling place of the heart. Transferring this meaning to the spiritual heart, presumably phronema is, literally, 'that which man has in heart/mind/spirit' - or the basis on which he decides or acts. If we see the mind as spiritually the centre of human existence and life, then it is the process by which we are connected mystically with the eternal and absolute Person of Christ.

Is this off-point or heading in the right direction? It would seem useful to get to a working definition of what we are discussing before we seek to establish the lineaments of an Orthodox phronema. The question of the uniqueness of that is, as you imply, not one for this forum.

In Christ,

John

Anthony

05-07-2007, 01:06 PM

If, as I understand, the Greek word phronema derives from the substantive phren, then, in its Doric form, phran denoted the diaphragm of the chest - the dwelling place of the heart. Transferring this meaning to the spiritual heart, presumably phronema is. literally, 'that which man has in heart/mind/spirit' - or the basis on which he decides or acts. If we see the mind as spiritually the centre of human existence and life, then it is the process by which we are connected mystically with the eternal and absolute Person of Christ.

Dear John,

Below are some relevant entries from Strong's Greek Dictionary, which suggest a rich range of connotations. I don't personally find "mindset" an attractive translation for any of them, but I have whinged enough about that on another thread.

(I would imagine the vowel alternation is simply Ablaut.)

It may help also to think about compounds such as "sophrosyne", "aphrosyne", "euphrosyne", which I think come from the same root.

5422 frenapataw
phrenapatao
fren-ap-at-ah'-o
from frenapathV - phrenapates 5423; to be a mind-misleader, i.e. delude:--deceive.

5423 frenapathV
phrenapates
fren-ap-at'-ace
from frhn - phren 5424 and apath - apate 539; a mind-misleader, i.e. seducer:--deceiver.

5424 frhn
phren
frane
probably from an obsolete phrao (to rein in or curb; compare 5420); the midrif (as a partition of the body), i.e. (figuratively and by implication, of sympathy) the feelings (or sensitive nature; by extension (also in the plural) the mind or cognitive faculties):--understanding.

5426 fronew
phroneo
fron-eh'-o
from frhn - phren 5424; to exercise the mind, i.e. entertain or have a sentiment or opinion; by implication, to be (mentally) disposed (more or less earnestly in a certain direction); intensively, to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience):--set the affection on, (be) care(-ful), (be like-, + be of one, + be of the same, + let this) mind(-ed), regard, savour, think.

5427 fronhma
phronema
fron'-ay-mah
from fronew - phroneo 5426; (mental) inclination or purpose:--(be, + be carnally, + be spiritually) mind(-ed).

5428 fronhsis
phronesis
fron'-ay-sis
from fronew - phroneo 5426; mental action or activity, i.e. intellectual or moral insight:--prudence, wisdom.

5429 fronimos
phronimos
fron'-ee-mos
from frhn - phren 5424; thoughtful, i.e. sagacious or discreet (implying a cautious character; while sofoV - sophos 4680 denotes practical skill or acumen; and sunetoV - sunetos 4908 indicates rather intelligence or mental acquirement); in a bad sense conceited (also in the comparative):--wise(-r).

5430 fronimws
phronimos
fron-im'-oce
adverb from fronimoV - phronimos 5429; prudently:--wisely.

John Charmley

05-07-2007, 01:27 PM

Dear Anthony,

Many thanks for these additional references - most helpful. I have some sympathy with your caveats about the use of 'mindset', which was one of the reasons I was trying to get us towards some definition of phronema with which we could work.

In his response to Celinda, Matthew wrote

Acquiring a 'mindset' in accordance with this reality -- that in the incarnation the created and the Uncreated are united -- transforms the approach to the cosmos around us which, whilst true, left open the question implied in this thread about how one worked to acquire the mindset described. In that context, mindset is indeed a weak word, but it may be the best we have to work with. You have suggested helpful alternatives in the past - I wonder if you would care to try to guide us again with one of them?

In Christ,

John

Rick H.

05-07-2007, 03:28 PM

"The Position and Behaviour of the Theologian in His Particular Time"

Dear John and All:

I would like to share a piece from an article that Paul Cowan shared with us all recently in another thread. It is from Archbishop Stylanios of Australia in his work The Theologian in Modern Society:

In an attempt to determine the position which an Orthodox theologian should have in contemporary society, and the behavior which is dictated by the mission to respond effectively in his responsibility towards God and human beings, we are obliged to remind ourselves of certain fundamental truths of the Faith, in their organic order and inner cohesion.

Firstly, we must clarify what 'phronema' is, being of course the most central presupposition which defines the position and behavior of the theologian in his particular time. The term 'phronema' is of pre-Christian origin, and can be found in a broad range of Greek literature.

Phronema comes from the verb 'frono' ('I believe'). In the religious and theological vocabulary of the Christian Church this term, like so many others, took on a much deeper and richer meaning. Thus phronema does not simply mean a steady orientation towards certain enduring moral values, which people knowingly profess and wisely struggle for throughout life. Rather, it means the completely self-sacrificial trust and faith in religious and ethical truths which derive not from human experience and wisdom, but from the voice of God through revelation, which is self-evident and does not undergo censure or doubt. This super-subjective origin of phronema is expressed in the New Testament with the well-known term 'mind of Christ', which is almost synonymous with phronema.

And, I think this is helpful in some ways, although look at what he has done here in the above. If I am reading this correctly, he has created a dichotomy between experience and revelation!

Yes, talk about subjective[!] . . . or the "super-subjective" as the Archbishop says (of the word origin itself), on one hand we have already seen that this alternative has proved to be very unfruitful; but on the other hand as it relates to a defining of an Orthodoxy mindset, I think this is pure gold. This really helps me to understand what seems to be a prevailing phronema as represented in some communities.

Here, if this is a credible presentation, "a fundamental truth of the Orthodox faith" includes not a juxtaposing of revelation and experience but a dividing of the two. Again, if he means what he says here . . . this is huge, and it explains much of the circular thinking that I have encountered.

As much as I like to read Barth, Brunner, and (even) Bultmann . . . their dialectical theology has led to this same dichotomy which is unhelpful to say the least, I think. And, the more I think about it as the Archbishop goes on in this article to differentiate between the human consciousness (theology from below) and how he constructs the Orthodox mindset in light of this sharp division below/above--experience/revelation, the more I start to think he himself may not be a stranger to the German and Swiss dialectical theologians who reproached some others in the German nineteenth century tradition (viz. Schleiermacher & company), as it relates to a theology of "experience and consciousness."

So, now I am wondering if in this article we are actually seeing a fair representation of an Orthodoxy mindset, or a rip off of the writing and thinking of the "Wholly Other" from some of the Germans of last century?

So, possibly some who are more informed than this novice can share with us about the dichotomy created here as it relates to "theology from above" and "theology from below?"

Is this the Orthodox Way?

In Christ,
Rick

Tim Grass

05-07-2007, 03:52 PM

In his response to Celinda, Matthew wrote
which, whilst true, left open the question implied in this thread about how one worked to acquire the mindset described.

What?? He wrote whole posts about "how".... so did other people. but you just trashed them. Just because you don't agree with thoughts, doesn't mean people don't give them......

--tim

John Charmley

05-07-2007, 04:25 PM

Dear Tim,

You write:

What?? He wrote whole posts about "how".... so did other people. but you just trashed them. Just because you don't agree with thoughts, doesn't mean people don't give them......

--tim

I am unaware of having 'trashed' anyone or anything.

As this is a new thread, it seemed not unreasonable to try to focus upon what we meant by 'mindset'; and to elaborate on the 'how' here seemed equally uncontroversial.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

05-07-2007, 07:01 PM

The comparing of x with y is necessary only in so far as it provides a contextualisation. The number of times that something has been described as though it were uniquely Orthodox when it may be part of a wider Christian heritage intrigues me.

I think this fairly well de-contextualises the immediate comment, however. In talking about the Orthodox phronema, as another member was, a response that looks into it further isn't, by doing so, making any claim one way or another about what any other group may or may not think or do.

INXC, Matthew

John Charmley

05-07-2007, 07:08 PM

I think this fairly well de-contextualises the immediate comment, however. In talking about the Orthodox phronema, as another member was, a response that looks into it further isn't, by doing so, making any claim one way or another about what any other group may or may not think or do.

INXC, Matthew

Dear Matthew,

Indeed not, and having doubly established that, I am looking forward to exploring this interesting topic further.

In Christ,

John

Celinda Grace

05-07-2007, 08:11 PM

"which, whilst true, left open the question implied in this thread about how one worked to acquire the mindset described."

Fr. Seraphim Rose

"We know many converts who grasp at "correctness" like a baby-bottle...One basic element seems lacking in all their wisdom, one which the Holy Fathers emphasize is essential for genuine Orthodox life: Suffering. The 'wisdom' born of leisure and idle disputes is not worth having; but the wisdom born of deep suffering is alone truly balanced and sound, even if it cannot give a glib answer to every mocking question. Let us try to enter more deeply into this suffering., God give us grace to do so!"

It seems to me that if the 'mind' of the Church is experiencial in nature and it is indeed the Mind of Christ then it can only be gained by living the experience of Christ. This goes beyond mere participation in the Eucharist, it must be a full participation in the Incarnation and the Cross in every aspect of our lives.

The Incarnation of Christ was manifest at His conception and the power of the Cross at His death. In us the Cross must be lived before we attain to the Incarnation and only in the Incarnation being manifest in us is the mind of Christ attained.
Ie Only the God-bearing elders truly have the full mind of Christ. It is not something that can be attained by study. (Thinking that it can be is a Protestant mindset) The aquiring of this mind is part of what happens as we are saved.

Philip 3:7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

15All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

M.C. Steenberg

05-07-2007, 11:22 PM

Dear Celinda, you wrote:

It seems to me that if the 'mind' of the Church is experiencial in nature and it is indeed the Mind of Christ then it can only be gained by living the experience of Christ. This goes beyond mere participation in the Eucharist, it must be a full participation in the Incarnation and the Cross in every aspect of our lives.

I thank you for this excellent and very thoughtful post. The fact that the incarnate Christ is, to use a favourite phrase for St Gregory of Nyssa, 'the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world', he is always Christ-crucified-and-risen. The experience of Christ is always of this Christ, and the life in Christ is always a life conjoined to this sacrificial glory.

Perhaps what I might suggest, as a way for further understanding the Orthodox phronema in this regard, is that the life of encounter in the eucharist be understood as not simply the physical act of approaching the chalice and receiving the holy gifts (perhaps this is the 'mere participation in the Eucharist' you mention?), but through the communion of the body and the blood of Christ to be united, in this mystery, to the suffering and risen Lord.

There is something of this in the hymn of the cherubim that is sung as the gifts are brought into the altar: 'Let us who mystically represent the cherubim, and who sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now lay aside all earthly care'. In the mystery of this symbolism, the human person is drawn into the act of praise of the cherubim, recounted in scripture as surrounding the throne of God, on which is seated the 'Ancient of Days', the eternal Son -- precisely the 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the world' of St Gregory and the Apocalypse. The eucharist is not simply participation in Christ 'without qualification' (to borrow a phrase from elsewhere), but Christ in the flesh glorified on the Cross and risen from the tomb.

This is a round-about way of saying that I agree whole-heartedly with your comments, but would consider that the 'Orthodox phronema' tends toward seeing this as part of the eucharistic life, rather than an 'also' set alongside it. It is in all things, but above all in this communion, that we are not only conjoined in mind and heart, but in body and blood to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Thank you again for a thought-provoking post.

INXC, Matthew

Celinda Grace

06-07-2007, 01:45 AM

Matthew,

but would consider that the 'Orthodox phronema' tends toward seeing this as part of the eucharistic life, rather than an 'also' set alongside it. It is in all things, but above all in this communion, that we are not only conjoined in mind and heart, but in body and blood to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross

Thanks for clarifying this. Coming from the outside as I do and never having participated in the Eucharist there us no way for me to see the way these two are related. I have to see them as alongside each other at this point.

the life of encounter in the eucharist be understood as not simply the physical act of approaching the chalice and receiving the holy gifts (perhaps this is the 'mere participation in the Eucharist' you mention?), but through the communion of the body and the blood of Christ to be united, in this mystery, to the suffering and risen Lord.

I think that by mere participation I was seeing participation in the Eucharist as sort of receiving a potential? and that the grace received must then be lived out in one's day to day life. By 'mere' I am saying that simply receiving the Eucharist is pointless if one is not living what one has recieved. In other words one can be united in the Eucharist to the suffering and risen Lord but never suffer nor rise. Am I still lost in a false dichotomy? Probably this will not really come together until I actually join the Church and partake.

Michael Stickles

06-07-2007, 06:34 PM

I recently read a good article by +Hilarion ...

He stresses very much the need to get inside the fathers, and I think that in his view acquiring an Orthodox mindset requires both being immersed in the Fathers - understood in their contexts - and also living in our own time and addressing that Orthodox mindset to the modern context.

Is there a small set of writings of the Fathers which might be considered a good "starting place" or "overview", something a little less intimidating than starting at Clement of Rome and continuing through Irenaeus and John Chrysostom and all those in between, and then beyond?

That would be especially helpful for those like me who are not Orthodox and so do not have the opportunity to touch the Orthodox phronema through the Eucharist or other sacraments, and can only do so in a limited way through the life of the church. And while "living the experience of Christ" (as Celinda put it) does change one's mindset dramatically, in my very limited experience of such living so far it has not seemed to do so in a distinctively Orthodox fashion.

I'm sure someone has already posted some kind of "beginner's list of writings from the Fathers" somewhere on this site, but I wasn't sure where to look for it (and didn't find one in the places I did look). Aside from Athanasius' On The Incarnation, I'm not sure where to start.

Nina

06-07-2007, 07:57 PM

Dear Mike,

I can not recommend to you because I do not know.

However here (http://www.peterandpaul.net/suggestedreadings.htm)is a site with some books which an Orthodox priest recommends. While the list does not state that it is for beginners, if you notice in the list there are several books for those with Protestant background, or Catholic and even one for atheists/agnostics.

Dear all,

About the phronema... we should all learn from our Saints' lives, because Saints' lives are the embodiment of that wisdom and word (and some more). None can claim they have phronema, while in this life. These are mutually exclusive. Because it indicates loss of humility. Without humility there can not be phronema in Orthodox terms. There was a story (can't remember where so please forgive the paraphrasing) about a Father, who while in the deathbed was tempted by Satan: "You conquered me with your holy life!" and the Father would say: "Not yet, but by the grace and mercy of Christ!" this continued until he reached the gates of Heaven and there the Father turned for a last time, but now saying: "Yes, by the grace and mercy of Christ!"

Also as Anthony advises above in the post #10 we must be careful what meaning we assign to the word phronema in our thoughts and in what relation we use it in our sentences in terms of Orthodoxy, because it indeed is a rich word, and its misinterpretation can mislead, or confuse. As Italians have observed: "Traduttore e traditore" = "The translator is a traitor". Try to mix into that Orthodoxy. :)

Yes, Anthony, I think you are right. Words like euphrosyne are of the same root as phronema.

I am aware that you know everything that follows, but it is an attempt of mine to show the rich background of words such as phronema as a reminder that we should stick to English in this case.

Euphrosyne is roughly translated as delight/mirth/happy/joy. However let's dissect it:

In Greek mythology she was one of the Three Graces. So she was the grace of delight. Because of the eu, the real meaning of the word euphrosyne is 'delight from above': where above is the equivalent of Heaven, because of the eu - like in Euangelion where eu gives the above nuance to the word (so the Good News from Above/Heaven).

The root (deepest) meaning of the word euphorsyne is wisdom (where it converges with phronema) and good thoughts. Because in pagan times (and not only then) it was thought that people who possess good thoughts and wisdom (in divine terms), possess also delight/joy/mirth/happiness from Above/Heaven. (Nothing like the science of linguistics and its logic!) :)

At least one Elder of Orthodoxy (Elder Paisios) advices us to have positive (good thoughts) so we can be children-like.

Father David Moser

06-07-2007, 09:34 PM

The comparing of x with y is necessary only in so far as it provides a contextualisation. The number of times that something has been described as though it were uniquely Orthodox when it may be part of a wider Christian heritage intrigues me. As an historian it is a not unfamiliar mindset - but that road definitely leads beyond the TOU - so back to our subject.

I think it is important to note that to discuss such "a wider Christian heritage" within the focus and guidelines of this forum should relate to how the "wider Christian heritage" is in fact derived from Orthodox belief (within the definitions of this forum this is Chalcedonian Orthodox Christianity) and does not - indeed cannot - exist independently of Orthodoxy. What I mean by this is that the "wider Christian heritage" does not contribute to Orthodoxy (how indeed can the fullness of the self-revelation of God be augmented or contributed to by something outside itself) but rather whatever in that "wider Christian heritage" is consistent with Orthodoxy does in fact derive from Orthodoxy. The problem, of course, is that it is then out of context and subject to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misuse (the Protestant use of the Scripture contains many examples of this - how even Scripture, when it is removed from the context of Tradition is subject to misinterpretation). Thus the only "contexualisation" that is possible would be to bring that point of commonality back into its original and only proper context of Orthodox Christianity.

We have to be quite careful with this, remembering that Orthodoxy is the standard by which all other religious opinions, beliefs and traditions are to be measured and not the other way round.

Fr David Moser

Michael Stickles

06-07-2007, 10:55 PM

John

07-07-2007, 12:18 PM

Nina,

Since I am not part of the Orthodox Church, it would be almost impossible for me to do more than "touch" the Church's mind; to actually experience it or "have" it would be as unlikely as actually thinking someone else's thoughts.

If phronema properly belongs to the Church instead of the individual, perhaps it would be better to say that, rather than "acquiring" it, you "participate" in it, that is, bring yourself (and allow yourself to be brought) into alignment with it and experience it? Or (to step way out on a limb) that, in its ultimate expression, your thoughts and attitudes are not just in agreement with the Church's thoughts and attitudes, but actually are the Church's thoughts and attitudes, because her mind and your mind are -- in some mysterious way -- one mind?

Hello John.

I wanted to say that this is a very beautiful post. I think you really understand this deeply! May God bless your continuing journey, and your wise humility!

Yours,
John

M.C. Steenberg

07-07-2007, 02:19 PM

Dear Michael, like John W., I also found your recent post very beautiful and perceptive. You've expressed a real sense of the phronema of the Church as a participatorial reality, rather than simply a way of thinking that one develops in one's self. This was set out beautifully in your comment:

If phronema properly belongs to the Church instead of the individual, perhaps it would be better to say that, rather than "acquiring" it, you "participate" in it, that is, bring yourself (and allow yourself to be brought) into alignment with it and experience it?

Indeed - that seems to sum up the general approach almost perfectly. Perhaps one of the difficulties with the English term 'mindset' is that it seems to have the flavour of an intellectual project: a set of things one determines to think. Phronema has something more: the sense of the development of the inclination of the mind and heart, so that it is grounded in Christian life. A disposition of the nous.

Again, my thanks for a very thoughtful set of remarks.

INXC, Matthew

Rick H.

07-07-2007, 05:47 PM

Dear Michael,

Michael--I'm sorry, but to be brutally honest here, the researcher in me cannot help but see the huge value in this case study--as you are guided and nurtured by a few, via generous affirmation or gentle correction, into a proper understanding of 'the general approach' of the Holy Orthodox Church.

And, I do think it would futher this conversation along, and may be helpful to "all" concerned in this consideration of an Orthodox Phronema, if you could share "from where you stand today," as we consider such comments as:

-- it is a participatorial reality, rather than a way of thinking

-- it develops in one's self

-- it is an inclination of the mind & heart

-- it is a 'disposition' of the nous

viz. :

1.) How is what is being said here *unique*, or in other words, how is what is being said here *different* from other presentations of a Christian Phronema, or 'a proper disposition' for the individual who seeks a greater grace which is found within the true community of the cross? (I ask this knowing of your varied religious background--having read your introduction-- and, as I am familiar with some of Celinda's influences from her blog and her writing here)

2.) You have already made a distinction between "individualism" and "community," for which I am grateful; however, I wonder how you would define the word "particularism."

In Christ,
Rick

Michael Stickles

07-07-2007, 10:05 PM

Rick,

I'll do my best with these...

1.) How is what is being said here *unique*, or in other words, how is what is being said here *different* from other presentations of a Christian Phronema, or 'a proper disposition' for the individual who seeks a greater grace which is found within the true community of the cross?

First, I'm not really qualified to answer this. The only previous discussions I've had of a Christian phronema (normally using the terms "mindset" or "mind of Christ" instead) which have not slipped into the ruts of purely intellectual or purely behavioral (in an external sense) thinking have been with my wife.

Second, I'm not sure why determining what is "unique" about this is important. The original idea you expressed was to:

be brought back collectively to the Beginning . . . to an authentic Orthodox spirituality ... which finds a Common Ground ... in a genuine, and an historic Orthodox Catholic Phronema!

Surely an historic Orthodox Phronema would not necessarily exclude any and all elements from other conceptions of a Christian phronema, would it? Or am I missing something in what you're looking for?

2.) You have already made a distinction between "individualism" and "community," for which I am grateful; however, I wonder how you would define the word "particularism."

I read the definition you quoted in your first post, but had a bit of trouble with it. It seemed to be similar to what I would call "sectarian", but not necessarily identical. If I used "particularism" it would be in reference to examining or discussing the parts of a whole as particular and separate objects, without really considering how they fit into the whole.

Rick H.

07-07-2007, 10:52 PM

Dear Mike,

Thanks very much for being so kind to respond. It's good to have you here at monachos. And, when you said:

I'm not sure why determining what is "unique" about this is important. The original idea you expressed was to . . .

I will share with you that "the original idea" of this thread (and others) has been lost along with the previous title and location. With the recent reshuffling of posts and threads, as has been noted by some others here, some of these range from seeming odd to being completely incomprehensible now.

And, when you ask:

Surely an historic Orthodox Phronema would not necessarily exclude any and all elements from other conceptions of a Christian phronema, would it? Or am I missing something in what you're looking for?

I would say that you haven't missed a trick here, it surely would not exclude these things--although there has been some discussion in the past about dropping these things at the door of Orthodoxy, along with everything else one thinks one knows, and then picking them up again once inside.

About the concept of particularism, possibly I can wait to get a feel for the new way of operating here at monachos before moving forward with this any further. But, I guess this is not a new way come to think of it we are just going back to the old way, aren't we?

In the End, the Beginning.

In Christ,
Rick

Michael Stickles

08-07-2007, 03:44 AM

Rick,

I will share with you that "the original idea" of this thread (and others) has been lost along with the previous title and location. With the recent reshuffling of posts and threads, as has been noted by some others here, some of these range from seeming odd to being completely incomprehensible now.

Sorry about that -- Celinda has mentioned that that kind of reshuffling happens, plus I've seen the topic swings on other threads (from new shades of emphasis to full-blown rabbit chases), but I let my thinking get stuck on one track here. I hope I didn't sound "curt" or "short".

there has been some discussion in the past about dropping these things at the door of Orthodoxy, along with everything else one thinks one knows, and then picking them up again once inside.

That sounds very much like the concept of "emptying your cup." The idea is that the mind is like a cup, full of your current ideas, thoughts, knowledge, and so on. Now, if someone brings you a new idea, how can you receive it? If you leave your cup full of the old knowledge, there is no place for the new. If you only pour out a little, then as soon as the new comes in it is mixed with the old and changes, so that what you receive is not really what was given (which is probably the concern that drives the discussion you mentioned).

But if you "empty your cup" first, you can receive the new without adulterating it, and see it for what it is. Only then can you understand it rightly, and compare it with what you have known before.

That's kind of what I'm starting to try to do in learning here -- let the new understanding be built up kind of "from scratch" within the Orthodox context, and wait until the new understanding seems somewhat "firm" (or "full") before I try to compare it with what I've learned before (I hadn't really started to do that last part yet with this issue, and your question kind of caught me off-guard; looking back at my reply, I think I let that color my "tone", and I apologize for that).

In Christ,
Mike

Nina

09-07-2007, 06:55 AM

Nina,

Thanks, I'll have to look over that list.

As to phronema, I deliberately used "touch" instead of "have" or "acquire" because so far in this thread the term seems to have taken on a more communal than individual meaning, as I also see in the following quotes:

Since I am not part of the Orthodox Church, it would be almost impossible for me to do more than "touch" the Church's mind; to actually experience it or "have" it would be as unlikely as actually thinking someone else's thoughts.

If phronema properly belongs to the Church instead of the individual, perhaps it would be better to say that, rather than "acquiring" it, you "participate" in it, that is, bring yourself (and allow yourself to be brought) into alignment with it and experience it? Or (to step way out on a limb) that, in its ultimate expression, your thoughts and attitudes are not just in agreement with the Church's thoughts and attitudes, but actually are the Church's thoughts and attitudes, because her mind and your mind are -- in some mysterious way -- one mind?

Dear Mike,

Sorry that I did not reply before because I was not available. My post about phronema was not at all in relation to your previous posts, but an extension of and in support of Anthony's post (as I have indicated; and before whom you have not posted in this thread). I support Anthony's previous contribution in this thread because I also believe that words carry an important significance (even in theology: the most powerful example, Christ our God was the Word of the Father) especially when we borrow them from foreign (ancient) languages. However, all I said about phronema had nothing to do with your post here, and that is why I made the distinction in my post by saying 'dear all' after suggesting the link with books to you.

I think you (like Celinda :) ) know a lot and study even more. Because of this I feel you will do very well. :) God willing I expect with eagerness to embrace you in the Orthodox Church. :)

P.S Mike, I have an idea for some reading for you... I think you and Celinda will enjoy very much the book "Wounded by Love" of Elder Porphyrios. I say this because I recall a post of Celinda about a minister in CA that built his parish with hippies. Elder Porphyrios expresses his wish to work also with hippies in his book. He was accepting of all and gave love to all without discrimination. In addition he has a rich spiritual experience that he shares with us in the form of sound, unmistakable and loving spiritual advise. Personally I love that book, and I think that that single book would have converted me if I was not Orthodox while reading it.

Rick H.

11-07-2007, 01:27 PM

A Particularistic Mindset

Dear Mike,

Thanks for your last post, and just for the record, when I review your posts, I get a good read. I have found, in general, some people have a tendency to assume the worst when they read on line posts, and as I'm sure you know, this method usually does not edify or promote 'open friendly discussion.' So thanks for the clarification, but I think we are good to go here. As for our previous discussion of the word "particularism," here is one good example of this:

Story - Other Churches Lacking, Pope Says - AOL News (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/other-churches-lacking-pope-says/20070711040209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Here, Benedict says the One True Church is the Roman Catholic Church. Again, here we see that "in Christian theology, particularistic thinking is schismatic thinking."

In Christ,
Rick

Peter Farrington

11-07-2007, 03:59 PM

But if you "empty your cup" first, you can receive the new without adulterating it, and see it for what it is. Only then can you understand it rightly, and compare it with what you have known before.

I must admit to being rather concerned at this idea because it seems to be pretty much what cults require and use as part of their programming.

Surely we are the person that God has brought along a pilgrim journey towards the Orthodox Church, and that spiritual journey began under the influence of the Holy Spirit long before we even knew of Orthodoxy.

I guess my concern is that the YOU that God is working on is not a tabula rasa, and you have already learned many things that the Holy Spirit has taught you before you reached where you are, therefore to abandon everything is to deny what God has been doing.

We should certainly have a humble and obedient spirit but Orthodoxy is not a cult and does not require empty minds. It requires the full engagement and transformation of WHO WE ARE, because our relationship with God is personal and began the moment he made YOU.

For myself as I was coming to Orthodoxy, I did let things just settle and not try to rationalise everything, but the Scriptural principle is that we should test things, and should compare them with what we believe to be true, in a humble way. To do anything we do not believe is not to act out of faith.

When I started looking at prayer as a teenager I came across various Eastern/Christian syncretisms that taught that one should empty ones mind in prayer, but from a very early period I realised that was dangerous and wrong, and that we are called to fill ourselves with the recollection of Christ. Likewise I do find it troubling to think of emptying ourselves of all that we believe in approaching Orthodoxy because that also lays us open to being filled with deception, just as an empty mind in prayer does.

Best wishes on your journey

Peter

Michael Stickles

11-07-2007, 04:29 PM

I must admit to being rather concerned at this idea because it seems to be pretty much what cults require and use as part of their programming.

Indeed, the word picture can be taken this way, and has by some, but that's not what I was referring to. Perhaps I should have clarified a bit more in my post.

The point is not to turn yourself into an empty slate, but rather not to immediately try to stuff what you are learning into the existing structure of the knowledge you have already acquired. "Emptying your cup" doesn't mean pouring the old contents down the drain, but putting them to the side while you are receiving and evaluating the new.

As a specific example, when my wife comes to me with a new idea, one of the things in my "cup" which I definitely have to "empty out" while listening is my vocabulary. She and I do not always use words the same way, and if I insist on hearing what she says using my definitions, I'll never understand her. But once I've heard her out and understood what she's saying in her terms, then I can bring my vocabulary and knowledge in and re-express her idea in terms that allow me to compare it with what I already know. Before I learned this, we had many heated arguments that ended in the realization that we had been in total agreement the whole time, but thought we were diametrically opposed because of the different ways we defined the terms we were using.

For myself as I was coming to Orthodoxy, I did let things just settle and not try to rationalise everything, but the Scriptural principle is that we should test things, and should compare them with what we believe to be true, in a humble way. To do anything we do not believe is not to act out of faith.

That really is the essence of what I was saying when I wrote:

But if you "empty your cup" first, you can receive the new without adulterating it, and see it for what it is. Only then can you understand it rightly, and compare it with what you have known before.

You're not trying to rationalize everything, but rather to receive openly to try to understand, not necessarily to accept (perhaps I hadn't made that last point clear). If I were to extend the word picture that far, accepting would be like drinking from the cup, and I wasn't really addressing that.