What is worship?

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I don't know if this warrants a new thread. It is "awkward question nr.1567"; er...what exactly is worship? When a person 'worships' God, what is going on for the parties involved? I seem to remember Bp Kallistos pointing to the fact that worship is the primary characteristic of human nature, more so than language or the use of tools. But what is it? How does it differ from an ordinary loving encounter between two humans? What makes a certain specific behaviour, e.g. prayer an 'act of worship'?

In Christ
Byron

[Rick H.]

Dear Byron,

I think this is an excellent question just as you have posed it! And, my mind goes straightway to Maria's 'Contemplation' thread and the various posts there that deal with much more than the creation; however, I am hoping that Father Raphael will enter here on this one (assuming he is still doing contract work these days ;)

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

Worship takes many forms, liturgical and private, and is closely linked to time. But in all its forms, it is the expression of faith.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Andreas,


Worship takes many forms, liturgical and private, and is closely linked to time. But in all its forms, it is the expression of faith. ...which rather begs the question of what, then, faith is! Thank you for linking worship to time and faith, associations which may offer some further clues as to the nature of the activity in question, though it is unclear from the above statement you make just what these connections are. What I'm looking for, I guess, is a concise and sufficient philosophical / theological definition of the activity of worship itself. I would suppose that it has something to do with divine energies and the human receptivity to these, or the spiritual union of creature and Creator in some way, but since it has been defined elsewhere as the human mode of existence par excellence, as a scientifically-minded modern person I would like to know how and why, as far as our theology permits this.

Happy New Year to everyone btw!

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

To this bear of admittedly little brain, worship is simply taking time to recognize who God is, corporately or privately. Sometimes, as the Psalmist says, we are to simply "be still, and know that I am God". At other times we come together as a people to acknowledge as a community who God is and who we are as His People. When we do this, it is called WORSHIP.

Herman the Pooh.

[Andreas Moran]

...which rather begs the question of what, then, faith is!

I think we've got a thread somewhere about this - trust in God.


What I'm looking for, I guess, is a concise and sufficient philosophical / theological definition of the activity of worship itself.

The 'activity of worship' is the central feature of our relationship with God. I wouldn't look for a 'philosophical/theological definition' of my personal relationship with God any more than I would look for a philosophical/psychological/anthropological definition of my relationship with my wife. Look into your heart, not your head.

[Effie Ganatsios]

"There are two dimensions to Orthodox Worship which are reflected throughout the many Services of the Church. First, Worship is a manifestation of God's presence and action in the midst of His people. It is God who gathers His scattered people together, and it is He who reveals Himself as we enter into His presence. The Worship of the Orthodox Church very vividly expresses the truth that God dwells among His people and that we are created to share in His life.

Second, Worship is our corporate response of thanksgiving to the presence of God and a remembrance of His saving actions - especially the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Orthodox Worship is centered upon God. He has acted in history, and He continues to act through the Holy Spirit. We are mindful of His actions and we respond to His love with praise and thanksgiving. In so doing we come closer to God. "


The above is from http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7119.asp

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Andreas wrote:
I wouldn't look for a 'philosophical/theological definition' of my personal relationship with God any more than I would look for a philosophical/psychological/anthropological definition of my relationship with my wife Point taken, Andreas, we are basically in agreement; nevertheless, there may be some value in trying to look for human terms in which to describe even something as abstract and ultimately indefinable as one's relationship with one's spouse. Else there would seem little point in engaging in any kind of rational discourse, academic theology included. Moreover, not all of us have the gift of experiencing a relationship of immediacy with God, and to those of us who don't, philosophy / theology may be the next best thing!

In Christ
Byron

P.S. Thank you Effie, for the clear defintion of worship you've submitted above. I guess it is only words, but they are useful to me.

[Nina]

Worship is also an expression of the holy eros for God.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Nina,


Worship is also an expression of the holy eros for God. Well said, if I may say so! I suppose this relates to what in Effie's quote is called
our corporate response of thanksgiving to the presence of God In other words, it is worship from the human perspective, and interestingly this holy eros which humans feel during worship may be characterised by a sense of gratitude, which seems essential to eucharistia. Maybe eros originates in God in the first place - but what, I wonder, is the relation of 'holy' eros to ordinary human eros?

In Christ
Byron

[Rick H.]

- but what, I wonder, is the relation of 'holy' eros to ordinary human eros?

In Christ
Byron

Very good question Byron, and not one without a good/helpful answer from some of the neo-orthodox as they have considered a 'human' eros in contrast to a 'holy' agape.

In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

I was taught by Bishop Eirenaios that Orthodoxy aims, not to suppress our natural but fallen impulses, but to restore them, to transfigure them and make them 'holy' and acceptable to God. The human eros should, then, be transfigured from baseness to holiness and so become an intense love of God in the image, as it were, of the Divine eros. Above all, the Mother of God had this divinised eros. Thus, she was chosen of all women of all time to bear God within her. So great was her love of God that she was able to cleanse herself and be the acceptable vessel of the Logos. Because of her divinised eros for God, she was able to co-operate in the Incarnation and so make possible our deification. So, transfigured, divinised eros for God cannot be overestimated - without the Mother of God having possessed it, there would have been no Incarnation and so no salvation for the world.

[Nina]

Byron,

Yes, I qualified eros with the word holy for distinguishing from what often is considered eros in secular terms (as Andreas also mentions). Sometime we hear the word eros and it really means lust, or other things (or we hear Eros and it means Ramazzotti :) ). But as you say, eros for God and good is something innate in us and we can either nurture it in the natural way (like it happens with saints), or as in some cases happens this gift is being vitiated or perverted.

[Nina]

Very good question Byron, and not one without a good/helpful answer from some of the neo-orthodox as they have considered a 'human' eros in contrast to a 'holy' agape.

In Christ,
Rick

Rick, I think eros in divine terms is much deeper than agape.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

R.R. Henry wrote:
Very good question Byron, and not one without a good/helpful answer from some of the neo-orthodox as they have considered a 'human' eros in contrast to a 'holy' agape.
I wonder if you can say a bit more about what neo-orthodox have said on the matter (BTW who are the 'neo-orthodox'?). Together with Nina, I would see the word 'eros' as signifying something deeper, and in a sense more 'instinctive' than agape, without playing down the significance of the latter, which itself is made very clear in human terms perhaps in the power of the need to belong. But eros, it seems to me goes deeper than a need to belong, and is qualitatively different: there is almost a sense of personal 'undoing', a loss of ego involved which in a Christian context would imply a unity in diversity, I suppose, since we don't subscribe to theories of merger or sufi-like annihilation of the self. As a side-issue, why do we resort to Trinitarian theology to explain the paradox of how we can be one, yet retain our difference? If you take away this common human problem, and put a philosophical thesis in its place (please don't tell me it's "an experience, not a philosophy", for me it's still a philosophy so I don't know what is meant by "experience"), I repeat, if we remove the flesh-and-blood experience of this social quandary and put a dogma expressed in human words in its place - how can this possibly satisfy the lonely human soul, isolated from its neighbours, markedly different from them in so many untold ways?

Either way, the responses on the difference between eros and holy eros, especially Andreas' well-written post on the Theotokos, still leave me wondering. Why is ordinary, human eros such a 'base' thing? Indeed, I would dare to ask what is so wrong with lust? I don't mean the common sense objection to the social consequences of lust, ranging from promiscuity (again: why is that wrong in itself?) to jealousy to abortion.

Surely the pre-Christian ancients understood something of the nature of lust, when they made prostitution sacred, as in the temples of Venus. And it is also interesting that they were not unaware of rudeness, but had the ability to treat it with humour: one of Aphrodite's sons is Priapus, a god of the scurrilous.

Anyway, perhaps I'm overstating my case (as usual!), but what I'm trying to ask is: why is human eros, indeed even lust, an evil thing? Surely it is a force that brings people together in a very powerful embrace; how can it be so bad?

Also, related to this issue is the question of what we mean by a 'transfigured' eros. Are we not 'angelising' when we claim that saints become more than flesh and blood through their ascetic labours? Why must we deodorise the earthy, and identify it with the earthly?

In Christ
Byron

[Andreas Moran]

This where a good knowledge of NT Greek is necessary - and I wish I had it! But rummaging around in Strong's Concordance and reading your interlinear NT, it is fairly easy to get some idea of what these words 'love' and 'lust' mean. There are three different words in Greek for love but the one used by Christ and St Paul to describe the love we should show to one another (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians, chapter 13) is 'agape'. 'Agape' is translated as 'charity' in the KJV but it clearly means that unconditional, undiscriminating love St Paul so famously describes at 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, based on the love Christ speaks of: see Luke 6:27-38. To describe lust, St Paul uses the word 'epithumia' which means desire with the connotation of wrongly directed sexual desire. Lust without this connotation means 'intense desire' and so nothing wrong with that. So far as I can see, the word 'eros' does not appear in the NT.


Why must we deodorise the earthy, and identify it with the earthly?

Because where the earthy, the 'fleshly', is misdirected, a man is misled. As St Paul puts it (in Romans 8:5-6 KJV) :

'For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace'.

It's all about how and where our impulses are directed, and thus about the need to re-orient and transfigure them as necessary. (I only wish I could!)

I presume the scholars here can bring on some patristic authority.

[Rick H.]

Dear all,

I wonder if you can say a bit more about what neo-orthodox have said on the matter (BTW who are the 'neo-orthodox'?).




Dear Byron,

I wrote extensively on this last year in The Heart of Salvation thread; however, this thread was subdivided to form new threads, and this (as well as the posts of those who interacted with me on this) seem to have disappeared. I tried searching in various ways for my posts and the others who contributed in this area, but these seem to have all been lost in the shuffle. Forgetting all labels now at this point, this model is developed well by Karl Barth and Anders Nygren. And, that's all it is is a model or a way of teaching and communicating concepts, but one that is extremely helpful and void of polemics (and agendas).

So, you are not really getting your question answered here because I don't have time to get into it now. But, I will put this on my list of things to do . . . possibly this would be a good one to rerun in the An American Orthodoxy? thread in the near future. I'll try to remember to send you a PM to let you know when we get there, it really is good stuff--very helpful for most.

Regardless of how we use these two words or what modifiers we attach to them they can be very helpful vehicles of understanding. Sorry this wasn't what you asked for, but hopefully soon. Thanks for asking.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

I wrote extensively on this last year in The Heart of Salvation thread; however, this thread was subdivided to form new threads, and this (as well as the posts of those who interacted with me on this) seem to have disappeared.


For that matter I have noticed that some of my posts (viz. eros and agape) seem to have disappeared as well.

But, lest we become completely censor happy here ...

Just to clarify, lest any be mislead by these remarks, no posts have been deleted. The fact that Rick cannot seem to find his posts does not mean that they have been removed.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Rick H.]

Just to clarify, lest any be mislead by these remarks, no posts have been deleted. The fact that Rick cannot seem to find his posts does not mean that they have been removed.




Must have been those invisible judaizers again!

Most of the time I am doing good to find my socks and my car keys on the same morning; but, sometimes I have a better memory. I have already checked the posts of Father David, Trudy, and Andreas from when The Heart of Salvation first began and these surrounding posts of the introduction of eros and agape are missing as well. As I remember it, in post #2 Father David was commenting on the book titled, "The Heart of Salvation" then in post #3 I gave an intro to eros first (followed by agape later), and then in post #4 Trudy made a post, which was followed by Andreas speaking on the book "The Heart of Salvation." Possibly, this will jog some of the memories here that may help to clear this mystery up?

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

why is human eros, indeed even lust, an evil thing? Surely it is a force that brings people together in a very powerful embrace; how can it be so bad?
In Christ
Byron

A force that brings people together in a very powerful embrace... and can it be bad?... Some days ago I was watching Mozart's Don Giovanni and he (the latter of course) was counting the women, he had "embraced" because of lust, by country in Europe (at least where he could go, or felt lustful enough). It was amusing to hear the numbers.

Eros, or desire in marriage is not evil, or bad, but in contrary blessed.

However as we know, for instance, lust drove David to commit murder and adultery. Although it has amazed me that Solomon was born of such unity. And it is not the only instance. Literature is filled with such tales (fictional, or non) of lust that drove people to commit acts that were not even part of their character previously. As we know there is not only fleshly lust, or lust for hedonism etc. but also lust for power, lust for money etc. (And while typing lust I often mistyped it as lost. Talk about coincidences!)

On the other hand we have the NT that says these about lust:

Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. (Gal. 5:16)
... crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Gal. 5:24)
Make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof (Rom. 13:14)
Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (I Pet. 2:11)

(After reading these sentences from the NT please do not ask me why lust is bad, since I am not its author).

And I would have thought that at least one of those sentences of the NT would have been addressed to the Corinthians. Because they were really bad :) (hey I am not judging, since I am worse, but I read it in the NT) in such aspects and the word korinthiasome had very bad connotation during that era.

About holy eros you can read some beautiful things that Elder Porphyrios writes. He says that "Holy Scripture and the Fathers cultivate divine eros".

As with love in general we have to feel the holy eros also, it can not be explained.

Just a reminder: my statement some posts above "Worship is also an expression of the holy eros for God." was strictly replying to the question what worship in relation to God is. And it was not intended to disparage other kinds of loves.

Also there is nothing wrong to say that saints had passion for God and left everything else just to be with Him. As we know we need passion for truly being successful in something we do. We must not be intimidated by saints' example, but encouraged by them.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Nina and Andrew,

Thank you both for your sensible replies. Andrew offers the distinction between 'agape' and 'epithymia'; this is understandable, except that, Andrew, you've missed my point about there possibly being a distinction between "earthy" and "earthly" - as there is a distinction in Christianity between the "body" and the "flesh". The "body" is "earthy", but the "flesh" is "earthly". So why take a natural desire and render it "unnatural" when it is directed at anything but God? And I'm also saying more than this - this is where I'm in conflict with Christianity - I'm saying: isn't there also something spiritual about the "earthy"? Why is Christianity so hard on sexual desire? How often, and where else, do we experience in our ordinary lives the power of such desire that we are willing to risk life and limb, indeed to sacrifice everything, just to satisfy it? Is there nothing praiseworthy in that? And, without becoming too graphic, can anyone who is at all honest have overlooked the strange similarity there is between accounts of religious and of sexual ecstasy?

Nina mentions Don Giovanni. Well, he loved much - why is that wrong? And provided we don't murder anyone, as David did indirectly, why is consensual sex between adults such a terrible thing? When I was a student (twenty or so years ago) I wondered why we've organised society around monogamy. Why couldn't it be organised say, in such a way that polygamy is acceptable, and children are raised communally? Would people still experience jealousy then? Would we have as many 'infidelities', abortions, murdered wives / husbands?!


As we know there is not only fleshly lust, or lust for hedonism etc. but also lust for power, lust for money etc. The problem is, I'm not really interested in these other kinds of lust (well Ok, 'lust for hedonism' does sound appealing)!
I'll check out what Elder Porphyrios wrote about it, but for the time being I'm still trying to work out why Korinthiazein is such a bad thing!

In Christ (?)
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Why is Christianity so hard on sexual desire? How often, and where else, do we experience in our ordinary lives the power of such desire that we are willing to risk life and limb, indeed to sacrifice everything, just to satisfy it?

Because it is self-glorification, SELF-gratification. You know, those things that got Adam kicked out of paradise. In a bigger sense, we put ourselves first and not God. It is putting our spouse first that some of us learn how to put God first. It is not about gratification, it is about commitment and sacrifice. It is part of a package, and should not be treated as something isolated. It is in the giving of self that true self is found, not in taking.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman,

Thank you for speaking the Christian truth with simplicity and clarity.

You write,
It is in the giving of self that true self is found, not in taking. How will my denying myself sexual pleasure, within the bounds of reason and consideration of other's feelings, make me come to greater self/awareness. *sorry this keyboard doesn't work properly, so no question marks...

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

How will my denying myself sexual pleasure, within the bounds of reason and consideration of other's feelings, make me come to greater self/awareness.

It is the choices we make that defines who we are. Denial is a choice. Giving in to temptation is often merely taking the path of least resistance. It is letting circumstance be in control, you are not making the choice, the choice is making you.

We can choose to live for Christ or we can choose to live for ourselves. Carrying a cross is the symbol of a Christian life, not romping in a bed. Even marriage is an icon of our proper relationship with Christ. We don't run off willy-nilly with every belief that comes our way. We make sacrifices and stay true to Christ and find our pleasure/treasure there, rather than living out the old country song "looking for love in all the wrong places".

What we choose matters. Choose wisely.


Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

Neo: Because I choose to. {from the movie The Matrix Revolutions}

[Nina]

Dear Nina and Andrew,

Nina mentions Don Giovanni. Well, he loved much - why is that wrong?

Umm... STDs for one. Also touching the marital bed of another brother human (as St. Tikhon of Zadonsk says in his advise to Christians). Marriage is a holy mystery dear Byron. I do not understand mysteries myself. We need the grace of God to comprehend.


When I was a student (twenty or so years ago) I wondered why we've organised society around monogamy. Why couldn't it be organised say, in such a way that polygamy is acceptable, and children are raised communally? Would people still experience jealousy then? Jealousy? Of course. Rachel and Leah for instance and many more examples from the OT when polygamy was practiced.



Would we have as many 'infidelities', abortions, murdered wives / husbands?!Of course yes. David for example.



I'll check out what Elder Porphyrios wrote about it, The Elder did not write about lust. He wrote about divine eros.

[Father David Moser]

I'll check out what Elder Porphyrios wrote about it,

The Elder did not write about lust. He wrote about divine eros.

Nina makes a very important point here in that many of the protestants in my experience (particularly those who are Greek language experts) tend to equate eros with sexual lust. I can't begin to count the sermons that boil down to "agape - good; eros - bad". I think that this prejudice is something from our North American puritanical heritage that just follows us around on a completely unrecognized, subconscious level. Eros is not necessarily sexual or even passionate (but it can be expressed in that context). Eros is what perhaps what some religious writers (Orthodox and non-Orthodox and even non-Christian) refer to as a state of "exstacy" or an "ecstatic" experience. It addresses the desiring aspect of the soul and indicates a state wherein the desire is completely monopolized by a single object that it draws the whole of the person into that desire. When we have "eros" for God this is a good thing - but when we have "eros" for anything else, it is idolatry. Much of this conversation relies on a full understanding of the nature of the soul and reading the writings of the fathers in that context.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Too much of 'Byron' in Byron Jack Gaist!

[Matthew Namee]

I would define worship as eucharistic sacrifice. Prior to Christianity, worship (both Jewish and pagan) principally involved the sacrifice of something material (animals, plants, incense). With the coming of Christ, our worship involves not a new sacrifice but a participation in the "once and for all" sacrifice in which Christ is "he that offers and is offered, accepts and is distributed." Sacrifice is the most fundamental and ancient way in which man expressed his relationship to the divine. As such, it is an act of relationship or communion. In the Church, we have perfect worship which involves both the spiritual and the material, and involves not merely A priest but THE High Priest (Christ) offering THE sacrifice (himself) and himself accepting it. So he is our intercessor not by just praying for us but by being the literal conduit by which we enter into communion with God. In the Liturgy, we have an altar, and on that altar is the Lamb. This is worship/sacrifice on the most basic level.

At least, that is how I understand worship. If I've said anything wrong, it's a result of my ignorance... corrections are welcome.

[RichardWorthington]

I would define worship as eucharistic sacrifice. Prior to Christianity, worship (both Jewish and pagan) principally involved the sacrifice of something material (animals, plants, incense). With the coming of Christ, our worship involves not a new sacrifice but a participation in the "once and for all" sacrifice in which Christ is "he that offers and is offered, accepts and is distributed." Sacrifice is the most fundamental and ancient way in which man expressed his relationship to the divine. As such, it is an act of relationship or communion. In the Church, we have perfect worship which involves both the spiritual and the material, and involves not merely A priest but THE High Priest (Christ) offering THE sacrifice (himself) and himself accepting it. So he is our intercessor not by just praying for us but by being the literal conduit by which we enter into communion with God. In the Liturgy, we have an altar, and on that altar is the Lamb. This is worship/sacrifice on the most basic level.

At least, that is how I understand worship. If I've said anything wrong, it's a result of my ignorance... corrections are welcome.

I think this is excellent!!

Of course, the sacrifice is not merely a human priest of necessity performing certain rites, but a "Mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise" and more significantly, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom 12:1). (Interestingly, the phrase "reasonable service" appears in our divine Liturgy, translated as "reasonable worship"; I read somewhere that the term "reasonable/logikos" in this context could mean "pertaining to the Word/Logos", i.e. Christ.)

So having offered our bodies to God we then partake of Holy Communion, so the Lamb is not merely on the table, but in us! And then the prefiguration of the old Law is made perfect, for God said to Moses, "And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony" (Exod 25:22).

In other words, "We have seen the True Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true Faith, We worship the Undivided Trinity, for He has saved us", as we sing at the end of the Liturgy. This refers to our deification and the partaking of the Eucharistic Body and Blood: in other words to worship God is to unite with Him. Seeing the "true Light" (i.e. becoming the true Light Itself) is the "worship of the Undivided Trinity"; taking communion worthily properly implies also seeing the Risen and Glorified Christ. (I speak more of this Vision in this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54920#post54920). Isn't Christ good in that He gives us communion despite our unworthiness, working within us to make us worthy.)

At least, this seems the only 'reasonable' answer: after all, why else did Christ come to us if not to unite Himself with us and so to bring us to the Father?

Richard

[Andreas Moran]

It occurs to me from reading the beautiful posts of Matthew Namee and Richard that we have here a compelling explanation for why only Orthodox Christians can say, 'We have found the True Faith'.

[Owen Jones]

Just a slight adjustment of Fr. David's remark on eros. It is not equated with ecstasy (ecstasis). Ecstacy is the outcome of a rightly oriented eros. Eros is not only our desire and intense longing for God, but it is the evidence of the Holy Spirit in us. It is a force that compels us to seek God; it is the "pull" of God's attraction that we respond to. And since God is unseen, eros typically or can at least be misdirected or misoriented toward the wrong "object," the wrong objective. This is why there is so much commentary in our tradition about how to order ourselves internally, so that our noetic faculties and sense perception can be transformed, so that we will have a clearer vision.

Regarding desire generally, there are really two traditions or two tracks or two lines of thinking. One is that all desire must be sacrificed, crucified. That the only true spiritual state is one of dispassion and detachment. The other is that desire is not to be destroyed or suppressed but reoriented, transfigured. Dispassion becomes an ordering force in the redirection of our desire, not so much the end goal. Of course, the end goal is never just a "personal relationship" but transfiguration/glorification -- leading to communion/union with God as like attracts like. This is what is meant in the teaching by ecstacy, a going out from self to God. A truly selfless state, in which the self ceases really to exist, or, shall we say, a loss of consciousness of self, a thinning out of self to the point where it becomes translucent.

The criticism is, of course, that this is non-Biblical, Platonic stuff that got into Christianity from Greek influences and has absolutely nothing to do with a Judaic-derived Christianity. But we have the fact that Christians had to borrow a language of mystical union from the Greeks, since this seems to be utterly foreign to the Jewish mind to this day.

[Nina]

(And while typing lust I often mistyped it as lost. Talk about coincidences!)


A PM from a dear friend (thank you!) prompted this clarification. I do not believe in coincidences.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


Too much of 'Byron' in Byron Jack Gaist! Andreas, is it necessary to get personal? I'll take it as a joke, provided you mean it that way...are you by any chance referring to my namesake (well, more accurately I'm his namesake), Lord Byron?

Thanks to everyone for their fine, intelligent responses and postings so far. I can hear the conviction and personal faith behind these postings on sacrifice, union with God, the true aim of desire etc. Yet I'm thrown back onto Herman's initial suggestion that, like Neo in the 'Matrix' movie, we should exercise our free will simply because we can. To deny ourselves pleasure is of course a very vivid demonstration of the exercise of free will (although to choose pleasure was also a demonstration of our freedom even at the very beginning, in Genesis); the point that I still can't decide, or have difficulty understanding, is why denying oneself sexual pleasure is a virtue.

I've always felt that certain other things, that we don't make nearly as much fuss over, are far more 'heinous' and 'impure' than sexual lust: what about competitiveness, jostling for position? What about subtly undermining the reputation of others so that we may emerge triumphant? Do we Christians ever sweat it out about doing these things? Or do we in fact aid and abet the atmosphere of subtle hostility by which some come to think of themeselves as being amongst the 'good, clean citizens' living by righteousness, and others are the 'whores', the 'junkies', the lost souls? I'm not referring to the great saints here, who at least in their writings and prayers seem to profess a humility by which they see themselves as the thief, the whore etc. even when they are in fact living lives of extreme ascetic self-deprivation (BTW, how can a person be merciful to others when they are so unforgiving towards themselves?). No, I'm referring here to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill Sunday Christians and their families, who may be such 'good' people, yet so subtly self-content, so indiscernibly ambitious, whose piety ever so inconspicuously rests on the assumption of impiety in others. Surely these are more serious sins than the partaking of pleasure in another's body, yet they just seem to get paid lip service in Sunday sermons, while the real 'meat' of the confessional (and hence the substance of our guilt) is how many times one has surrendered to the gross temptation of lust, or flown off the handle at the neighbour mowing his lawn on a weekend.

What I still do not understand is what makes Don Giovanni impure (STDs aside). Why must love of the beautiful (philokalia) be understood in abstract theological terms, like 'grace'? Why isn't the glory of a woman's body as beautiful as a sunset, and indeed (i know I'll get attacked for saying this, but here goes), as beautiful as God? Is it not possible to love both God and the beauty of women?

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

but not all things are convenient.

All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

If we can choose to do something, we can choose NOT to do something. To do something for no other reason than because we can, to "exercise" our freewill, is to fall into a Gnostic trap.

If you have no idea where you are going, any path will certainly get you there, but we know where our ultimate destination is, and follow the narrow path. It means that some paths are NOT followed, it means certain choices are made NOT to do certain things.

Certainly, we are "free" to do pretty much whatever we can get away with, but in the time-tested wisdom of the saints, certain choices are not good choices. The Apostle Paul writes extensively on the pitfalls of choosing sexual pleasure and why it is NOT edifying.

Are there "worse" sins? Certainly, but all sins "miss the mark" and take us further away from God. A boat with many small holes ("little" sins) will still sink eventually if we do not take action to bail it out, and bailing will be a constant activity unless we take action to patch the holes. This is the medicine of the Church, this is asceticism. The fact of the matter is that asceticism helps bring us closer to God, if we trust the teachings of the Faith and the witness of the saints.

However, denial of sex, for the weaker person, can in fact destroy that person, so the Church gives us a framework that still allows us continence and chastity (self-control) in monogamy. And even then there are times when we are told to abstain from each other to better devote ourselves to prayer and our relationship with Christ. Some activities contribute to this, and other activities detract. If your goal is not to become Christlike, then you might as well become wiccan: "Ane it harm none, do what ye will". Wiccan is, of course, simply another face of neo-Gnosticism.

[Effie Ganatsios]

We have had many discussions about sexual desire in the past.

Sexual lust is a normal function of the human body. How else would the human race survive? Some people consider it to be the most powerful driving force that humans have. When is it wrong? When it is indiscriminate, when it is impure, when it involves one person dominating another, when it involves one person taking advantage of another. When it is the product of a deformed mind i.e. paedophiles etc. I hate this word by the way because it means lovers of children but paedophiles love no children, they love only their perverted selves.

There are several reasons humans abstain from sexual acts, the most common one being the desire to give up certain practices when trying to discipline the body and its desires in order to come closer to God. Celibacy is common in all religions, because of the belief that sexual acts take too much energy from the body, just as overeating, etc. does.

There are practical reasons for celibacy, not because sex itself is impure but because of its effects on our bodies, not just physical but also mental. You can become just as obsessed with sex as you can with hate, with food, and with greed, etc. God gave us brains as well as sexual organs.

An afterthought : Our Greek philosophers tell us : moderation in all things. The Old Testament tells us of men who had dozens of children - it appears that people in the Old Testament were very lusty people indeed. Another Greek quote is, of course "Know thyself" - this means that if sex is an obsession with you then you need to take measures to find out why and then, if you desire, try and remedy the situation. And this, of course, applies to all inordinate desires.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear all,

Why must love of the beautiful (philokalia) be understood in abstract theological terms, like 'grace'? Why isn't the glory of a woman's body as beautiful as a sunset, and indeed (i know I'll get attacked for saying this, but here goes), as beautiful as God? Is it not possible to love both God and the beauty of women?

In Christ
Byron

Exactly! I agree completely.

If someone decides to become a monk then of course the matter changes but for those of us who have decided to take another road the most wondrous beauty can be find in the human body.

I don't remember where I read this but celibates who condemn those who have decided that marriage fulfills their earthly needs are anathema.

Not everyone can be celibate just as not everyone is suitable for marriage.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Googled and found this at http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/homilies/e_0109a.htm

The 1st Canon of the Council of Gangra states: "If anyone disparages marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman sleeping with her husband, notwithstanding that she is faithful and reverent, as though she could not enter the Kingdom, let him be anathema [i.e. declared outside the Church]." Further, in the 14th and 10th Canons, "If any woman should abandon her husband and wish to depart, because she abominates marriage, let her be anathema and should a celibate exalt himself over one who is married, let him be anathema"

and

The sanctity of marriage as defined in the Epistles of the Holy Apostles encompasses as well intimate relations between the husband and wife, individuals who complement and love one another: "And the two shall be one flesh". This most secret of moments in the life of a married couple can be holy, if it is the result and symbol of their complete spiritual and mental intimacy and physical accord. This is a special stage of interrelationship. Sometimes one can observe that the eyes of newlyweds shine with new bounds of love and happiness. For this, we may thank God, remembering that "all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female." (51st Canon of the Holy Apostles).


Read the whole article. It is quite interesting.

Effie

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends, let us keep this thread on the topic 'What is worship?' please, and take discussions on sexual desire, abstinence, etc., to threads focused on those themes.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


Dear friends, let us keep this thread on the topic 'What is worship?' please, and take discussions on sexual desire, abstinence, etc., to threads focused on those themes.
Matthew, I know what you're saying here, but I wonder if another point of view may question whether we've left the topic of worship, and to what extent. Is not one definition of worship that of desire returning to its origin? If God is the appropriate 'object' for our eros, and if worship involves not only the mind, but also the body, then is a discussion of the erotic and sexual necessarily out of place in a discussion on worship?


If your goal is not to become Christlike, then you might as well become wiccan: "Ane it harm none, do what ye will". I'm glad you brought this up, Herman. The Wiccan movement has its origins in 19th century Britain, as you know, otherwise famed for its tight-lipped, puritanical religiosity. I think one of the stronger 'calling cards' of neo-paganism is its apparent acceptance of and even respect / veneration of the body, the earth, immanent nature. Effie is right to some extent to suggest that
Celibacy is common in all religions, because of the belief that sexual acts take too much energy from the body but it may be that neo-pagan, pantheist beliefs attract modern people precisely because the energy of sexuality is apparently recognised there in its own right. We have a situation which is so hypocritical across the world - religions like Christianity and Islam, even Hinduism, teaching self-control, and 'decent' middle-class citizens maintaining the air of dignified restraint in their business suits, but in the meantime the pornography industry doesn't know where to put its money. Who is watching all that 'filth' - the wiccans?

Or must I be relegated to the exterior fires of gnosticism because I maintain there may be something wonderful about the body and desire?

I'm sorry to make the case rather too strongly, but I've yet to hear one solid reason why consensual, playful sex is bad. Nonone here is arguing that abuse of minors is a good thing, or unequal invasion of another's privacy at any level. I'm talking about something which I see as the opposite of abuse: our natural desire to unite in ectsasy with another created being, and I'm wondering where the ties of love begin and end.

Hasn't Christianity made man a being divided against himself, by introducing so many forbidden zones? Could 'war against the passions' end up as war against ourselves in inner division?

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Gnostics worship "knowledge". Wiccans worship "creation". They all miss the mark, they do not worship the Creator, they worship the created. In the final analysis they all end up worshipping themselves. Again, this is what got Lucifer in trouble along with Adam and Eve.

The problem, I think, is focus. What, exactly are we focusing on? If we are focussed on self-gratification, we are selling ourselves short. If we focus entirely on that which is "good" (creation) we miss seeing that which is "BETTER" (the Creator).

This mixup is understandable. There is evidence in the Epistles of the Apostles that the early Church wrestled with this issue as well. But it WAS dealt with. What the position of the Church ought to be is made rather explicit in the writings of the Apostle Paul, and in the teachings of the Holy Fathers (and Mothers), people who drew near to God.

What is the goal? Is it to feel good, to have "fun", or to take up our crosses and follow Christ? If it is the former, then you are in the wrong place, there will be very little sympathy for such a goal here at Monachos, and perhaps the discussion becomes moot or at least fruitless. If it is the latter, then what things bring us closer to our goal? Is playful sex necessary to make us like Christ?

If we are to be spiritual athletes, shouldn't we follow the advice of those athletes who are experienced and have achieved the same goal we are seeking? Should we not engage in the exercises and discipline they recommend? Or should we follow the "free-spirited" pagans, who do whatever they will and remain earth-bound, oblivious to their shackles and to that which is just beyond their vision? Or do we struggle to break those bonds and to focus beyond the horizon, beyond that which is seen to Him who is beyond?

There are many paths and many destinations. Not all paths have the same destination. If your destination is Christ, the path is hard and narrow, if we trust that the Church is the faithful steward of the Apostolic Witness to the Truth that is Christ. All things may be lawful, but not all things edify. All things are lawful, but not all things achieve the same result. We look to those things that are proven, tried and true, that produce Christ-like saints. Pornography doesn't. Indescriminate sex doesn't. Self-gratification doesn't.

Who or what do you worship? There is your God. Who you worship determines how you worship, and vice versa as well I suspect.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman,


Is playful sex necessary to make us like Christ?
I wouldn't think so, except as an expression of joy and gratitude, which God does recommend. But even if playfulness and eroticism are not a necessary part of being Christian, do they necessarily make us unchristian (or even anti-Christian)?


Who you worship determines how you worship, and vice versa as well I suspect. Might this not also apply to our images of Christ? I'm not saying for a moment there may be anything 'wrong' with the Holy Liturgies of the Church as they stand; but does everyone receive and perceive the meaning of the liturgy in the same way? Might it not be the case that, according to my personal redispositions, the Christ I worship may be more like the Lord of the vine and the dance, whereas another Christian may perceive in Him the Sun of Righteousness, another the Son of Man etc.? Yet all are 'Christs', images of the One underlying reality.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps there is a place for our bodily eros and our senses in the Christian Tradition itself. I'm not saying we should stop fasting, prayer or ascetic labour (might even these not also be part of eros, but in a less obvious way?); but maybe there is also a place for extrovert feasting, joyous and blessed participation in the world and in the created order with complete impunity. OK, I have been over-emphasizing the point by suggesting polygamy might be OK, or even pornography (not that it might be OK, but that it may have a non-'filthy' aspect) or - what is surely (or should be) even worse from a Christian point of view - even pantheism; but I 've done so with a purpose in mind: to suggest looking away from the conventional images of Christ as propagated by a peculiar, puritanical variety of life-denying, pharisaical and hypocritical 'Sunday' Christians.

It is very difficult for created, sentient beings to worship an abstract entity called "the Creator". We may be blessed for believing without seeing, but it can become quite stressful. I have knowledge, I can see a tree. Even the Church permits the depiction of God (at least in His Second and Third Hypostases) iconographically, though it then asks us to lay aside all images in noetic prayer. I've yet to meet someone who doesn't need some form of concrete verification of joy at some time just in order to remain alive and sane. Not everyone can see with the eyes of their soul, and this inability involves a painful loss, like having a parent who is never home, but sends us letters reassuring us that He does love us. Christ's sources of energy were both divine, and to the extent that they were human at all, fully transfigured. His sacrifice was a martyrdom proportional to His spiritual stature. Our energies, however, are earthy and unreformed; anyone who has enjoyed a hearty meal knows as much. Must we dry up totally before we can be transfigured? Indeed, does anyone even get into heaven looking soppy and stern?

In Christ
Byron

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear all,

We have a situation which is so hypocritical across the world - religions like Christianity and Islam, even Hinduism, teaching self-control, and 'decent' middle-class citizens maintaining the air of dignified restraint in their business suits, but in the meantime the pornography industry doesn't know where to put its money. Who is watching all that 'filth' - the wiccans?


In Christ
Byron

I believe that the huge increase in this "industry" is the result of the downgrading of the sexual act from the blessed joining of two people (as described above in the segments I posted) into something that is just physical. This ultimately does not fulfill the fantasies of those that engage in this type of activity, and they then seek more and more strange sensations, hoping that they will somehow find that which they seek.

The body and mind are corrupted because these people follow their own selfish path and not that of God. Claiming they are Christians or whatever is just a way of concealing their real selves from others, and sometimes even from themselves. Their god is sex and has nothing to do with love or erota (eros).

Love of God :

"St. Dionysius the Areopagite used an understanding of eros that refers to the very hypostatic love of God Himself:

…while He Himself being the Cause of all things…is also Himself good, divine Love [eros]… [in Greek:] o Theios eros agathos."
(My translation godly, pure Love).

Following this, St. Dionysius immediately defines the very meaning of eros itself, explaining that he does not use the term in the pagan sense like Plato, i.e., eros meaning a human desire to achieve one's own perfection, but rather, he uses it as a name of God.."


Could someone give me some links to articles concerning God = eros = love. The sites I have visited seem as confused about this subject as we are.

Effie

[Nina]

Could someone give me some links to articles concerning God = eros = love. The sites I have visited seem as confused about this subject as we are.

Effie

One of the most straightforward answers is what Elder Porphyrios writes in "Wounded by Love".

There is a chapter dedicated to divine eros. However throughout the book there are moments when he refers to this notion again.

[Effie Ganatsios]

One of the most straightforward answers is what Elder Porphyrios writes in "Wounded by Love".

There is a chapter dedicated to divine eros. However throughout the book there are moments when he refers to this notion again.

Thanks Nina. I started reading this book and then stopped when I left on my trip. Yes, his words are full of his love for God. I am ashamed to say that your mention of this book is the first time I have thought of it since coming back.

I have already mentioned the fact that someone told me that elder Paisios took years to read a certain book. I seem to flit from one to another and as a result, my concentration is nearly non-existent.

[Nina]

I have already mentioned the fact that someone told me that elder Paisios took years to read a certain book. I seem to flit from one to another and as a result, my concentration is nearly non-existent.

I do like to alternate books also and that's why I can't recall which Father said what. :) I think that it is fine to put a book away and return to it when you miss it - like with a close good friend... there is no pressure involved, just things at leisure, or time of need.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Might this not also apply to our images of Christ? I'm not saying for a moment there may be anything 'wrong' with the Holy Liturgies of the Church as they stand; but does everyone receive and perceive the meaning of the liturgy in the same way? Might it not be the case that, according to my personal redispositions, the Christ I worship may be more like the Lord of the vine and the dance, whereas another Christian may perceive in Him the Sun of Righteousness, another the Son of Man etc.? Yet all are 'Christs', images of the One underlying reality.

In a word, no.

That sounds very relativistic We do not pick and choose "which image of Christ" we want to believe in. This is nothing but idolatry, plain and simple. You end up worshipping an "image" and not the real Christ. It might be an aspect of Christ, but you miss the fullness. It is like saying I will love my wife because she is attractive, forget the fact that she also has a mind and a wonderful personality. If you are going to pick and choose, you might as well become an Episcopalian.

Our "predispositions" are of a fallen nature. We want to rise above it, not revel in it.


What I'm suggesting is that perhaps there is a place for our bodily eros and our senses in the Christian Tradition itself. I'm not saying we should stop fasting, prayer or ascetic labour (might even these not also be part of eros, but in a less obvious way?); but maybe there is also a place for extrovert feasting, joyous and blessed participation in the world and in the created order with complete impunity.

In theory, theory should mirror reality, but in reality, it seldom does. I don't know about "complete impunity". On second thought, no. "Complete impunity" is a very very bad idea. This was, of course, a part of one version of Gnosticism, and condemned by the Church. It sounds great in theory, but it simply does not work that way in reality. We are to be watchful, because the Bridegroom comes like a thief in the night. I guess it depends on what you really want. Do you want to celebrate treasure that does not last or prepare for everlasting treasure? Where is your treasure? The saints show us that they have experienced something that makes the greatest joys of this fallen world seem like nothing special. I don't think it is "wrong" to be "happy" here, but this is a temporary place, we are only visitors, pilgrims on the way to the Heavenly Kingdom. We shouldn't get too comfortable. So, no, I (for one) simply do not buy into that idea. It does not sound "ortho-doxa".


It is very difficult for created, sentient beings to worship an abstract entity called "the Creator". We may be blessed for believing without seeing, but it can become quite stressful...I've yet to meet someone who doesn't need some form of concrete verification of joy at some time just in order to remain alive and sane.

True, that is why we have the Church and the Sacraments and Feasts which are physical, tangible manifestations of the greater reality that lies outside our physical senses.


Not everyone can see with the eyes of their soul, and this inability involves a painful loss, like having a parent who is never home, but sends us letters reassuring us that He does love us.

True. Isn't it wonderful that our God who loves us has given us His love letters, which we refer to as Holy Scripture, and is actually with us in each other through prayers and the Sacraments.


Our energies, however, are earthy and unreformed; anyone who has enjoyed a hearty meal knows as much. Must we dry up totally before we can be transfigured? Indeed, does anyone even get into heaven looking soppy and stern?

Indeed, a hearty meal can be a very bad thing. Even secular medicine is finding that smaller meals make us healthier. Hearty meals and sensual pleasures cloud the mind and senses, making it harder still for the eye of the soul to see.

We are athletes, training to participate in Eternity. Moderation and discernment are key. We must discriminate between that which is merely lawful and that which leads us along the path to our goals. Not all of us are "professional" athletes, nor are we going to win any "spiritual olympics", but we all do well to practice those things which have been time-tested to produce a "healthy" spirituality, and shun those unhealthy activities, pleasureable though they may seem, we pay a price for them. We are not an "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die" Church. We are a "be ready at all times because tonight you may stand in Christ's presence" sort of Church. I agree that this is not appealing to everybody. Christ did not appeal to everybody. Some people asked Him to leave, others turned their backs on Him. He was NEVER "all things to all people". He is the great "I AM", not a smorgasbord. We take Him as He is, not as we want Him to be. Otherwise we are simply setting ourselves up for one BIG disappointment down the road.


but I 've done so with a purpose in mind: to suggest looking away from the conventional images of Christ as propagated by a peculiar, puritanical variety of life-denying, pharisaical and hypocritical 'Sunday' Christians.

This is a popular line of reasoning. But "popular" doesn't equate to "correct". What you are really saying is that you do not trust the Church to be what it claims to be. I don't know how to address that. I guess that is something that you and God need to work out between yourselves. You propose this in a somewhat ironic setting. We are the Orthodox Church. We specifically refer to ourselves as the "correct-doctrine" or "true-belief" or "rightly-worshipping" or "Proper-Glory" Church. To suggest that such a Church has got it wrong seems rather futile, and smacks of hubris. The other option would be that the Church is guilty of the ultimate hubris and you should probably run from it as fast as you can. But I don't think the reasoning you have proposed is going to flourish in this particular environment.

I look to better minds than mine if I have gotten it seriously wrong.

Herman the Pooh

[Nina]

I look to better minds than mine if I have gotten it seriously wrong.

Herman the Pooh

You never do (the latter part of your sentence).

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman,

I propose to lay this particular thread to rest. I hope what I've said on it will not be misconstrued, or cause scandal. Particularly I hope I will not be the cause of anyone's spiritual compromise, what with my admittedly rather 'free' style of expression at times.

I look forward to discussing other topics on other threads with you and all of course.

In Christ
Byron