More on the Married Man Becoming a Monk

We received a comment on our post Can a Divorced Man Become an Orthodox Monk? from N.  F. Perry. Ordinarily we anonymize the identity of inquirers but Mr Perry has used his own personal identity in the comment posing his question and we cannot anonymize it. Moreover Mr Perry is something of a public figure. Mr Perry’s comment is this:

Seems good and clear advice. My own question is: if my marriage (recognized under civil law of UK) in church has not been registered with any diocese, can I become a monk without obtaining a civil divorce but with the consent of my wife? Would appreciate very much your observation on this situation from the point of view of Orthodox canon law.

This is a somewhat perplexing question. Mr Perry is originally from the UK. That suggests to us that his marriage was originally in the Anglican Church. However, he seems to be saying, his marriage, although recognized under the civil laws of the UK—so that under UK law Mr Perry and his wife are married—has not been registered with any (Anglican?) diocese despite the fact of having taken place in a church (presumably Anglican). Under these circumstances, Mr Perry wishes to know, can he become a monk without getting a divorce, merely with the consent of his wife?

First of all we, Orthodox Monk, are not Orthodox canon lawyers or in any way experts in Orthodox canon law. Moreover we are not a secular lawyer anywhere. We can only speculate.

Next, we assume that Mr Perry wishes to become a monk in the Orthodox Church. His biography says that he lived for a time in a monastery in Crete; such a monastery would ordinarily be Orthodox, Crete being an island that is part of Greece, where Orthodoxy is the state religion. Mr Perry has also published a novel about Mt Athos but we have no idea how much time Mr Perry spent on Mt Athos and the state of his relations with the monks of Mt Athos.

Mr Perry lives, or has been living, on a property in Chile. We have no idea if the Orthodox Church is represented in Chile. Chile is a country where the dominant religion would be Roman Catholicism, although we imagine that there is a certain amount of religious pluralism and even outright atheism. Moreover we have absolutely no idea of Chilean law. So the issue arises of the disposal of the property in Chile—and any other property in any other country—in the context of Mr Perry’s entry into a monastery.

We assume that Mr Perry is still a citizen of the UK. We have no idea of Mr Perry’s status in Chile. Has he become a citizen? Is he a legal resident of Chile? How does the Chilean state view his status under Chilean law and especially the status of the property he is living on in Chile? How will Chilean law view a legal separation between Mr Perry and his wife executed in the UK (see below)? We don’t know.

Let’s make some basic observations. You can’t become a monk in the Orthodox Church unless you are Orthodox. Somewhere along the line Mr Perry has converted to the Orthodox Church or will convert to the Orthodox Church. If Mr Perry has not converted and does not intend to convert to the Orthodox Church we can say nothing since only a member of the Orthodox Church can become an Orthodox monk. If as a non-member of the Orthodox Church he wished to take up his abode in an Orthodox monastery that would depend on the discretion of the Abbot and the local bishop; however the situation would be unusual because a non-member of the Orthodox Church could not receive the sacraments of the Orthodox Church, including monastic tonsure.

Next, the question arises of the status of Mr Perry’s marriage in the Anglican Church. Is it recognized as a marriage by the Anglican Church? Mr Perry says that he was married in church but the marriage was not registered with any diocese. Mr Perry would have to ask an Anglican canon lawyer or bishop whether he is married in the eyes of the Anglican Church. We have no idea. This is outside the realm of our expertise.

Next, let’s suppose that Mr Perry has converted or is going to convert to the Orthodox Church. The place where he converts would have an approach to his Anglican marriage, whether the Orthodox Church recognized that marriage or not. On this question Mr Perry would have to ask the people who were receiving him formally into the Orthodox Church, or if he has been Orthodox for some time, the monastery where he wished to become a monk. This is a matter that has to be analyzed concretely in the context of specific places and specific people where Mr Perry is going to become a member of the Orthodox Church and/or an Orthodox monk.

In the Orthodox Church you have to become a monk somewhere. There must be a specific monastery that you become a monk in. That means that there are specific people—the Abbot, the Council of Elders, the local Orthodox Bishop—who must be persuaded that they want to make you a monk in their monastery. Now it is possible that Mr Perry could become a monk in a monastery in Crete and be sent back to his property in Chile to live while still depending ecclesiastically on the monastery where he became a monk, but that is something the monastic authorities enumerated above would have to agree to.

While we understand that Orthodox canon law views monastic tonsure as dissolving the marriage and while we think that in Greece in the Church of Greece or even in a monastery on Mt Athos a signed consent of the wife to the husband becoming a monk would be sufficient for the ecclesiastical authorities if the parties to the marriage were both Greek and Orthodox, we think that the ecclesiastical authorities would still want some formal disposition of the property involved in the marriage. However, the situation is far more complicated in the case of Mr Perry as we have discussed above.

With the above caveats, therefore, we think that the approach would or should be this. Mr Perry has to go with his wife to a lawyer in the UK to arrange a legally binding agreement with his wife that they will be permanently separated until death. This agreement will stipulate that Mr Perry intends to become a monk in an Orthodox monastery and that Mr Perry’s wife agrees with that decision. We are taking the view that a mere written consent of the wife to Mr Perry becoming an Orthodox monk would be too weak given all the complications enumerated above. The concrete Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities with whom Mr Perry was working might disagree and accept a simple written consent of the wife. We would stand corrected. The UK legal agreement would stipulate the terms of the permanent separation with regard to any legal issue that might exist especially concerning the disposition of any property belonging to one or the other party to the marriage and any property held in common.

The UK lawyer would have to establish that the agreement would be recognized to the extent necessary under Chilean law. If for some reason the Chilean state did not recognize the UK separation agreement, then something would have to be worked out under Chilean law for the disposition of property in Chile—and we suppose for the separation itself. Conceivably the property in Chile would have to be sold and Mr Perry might have to leave Chile because of legal issues, we don’t know.

At the same time that Mr Perry and his wife are working on a legal separation in the UK, Mr Perry would be discussing with the concrete Orthodox authorities in the place where he intends to become a member of the Orthodox Church and/or an Orthodox monk how those Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities will view his UK separation agreement with his wife. We would think that if the Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities were confident that the UK separation agreement was valid in law both in the UK and in their own legal jurisdiction then they would be satisfied that Mr Perry could become a monk in the Orthodox Church, assuming that all other issues had been taken care of.

Clarifying Remarks on a Post

“Abcd Efgh” has posted a comment on “Love as a Spiritual Lens Through Which to View the Gospel” which reads:

Why is a person who leaves the family, having been brought up badly, wrong? I don't get it, isn't it better for the person to leave? (signed Abcd Efgh)

Here is the passage that “Abcd Efgh” is commenting on:

Let us take another example. A young person has been brought up badly. They have left school and family and are living on their own. This is not an ideal Christian life. They have made an effort to resume their education but spiritually they are among lost ones. Perhaps, however, less lost than many still in school. They have spiritual interests. However, the first obstacle to their conversion is the notion of sin.

Will they find someone with love in their heart to guide them to Christ? For let us look at such a young person’s encounter with the notion of personal sin. A young person sins—in this day and age, who knows how? But they have spiritual interests. In some way God is calling to them, to their heart. God is calling them to Life. But the first thing they hear is, “Repent!” In the hands of the unloving preacher this is the road to an authoritarian judgmental Christianity; in the hands of the loving Elder or confessor, this is the beginning of a conversion to an Orthodoxy that is not formalist but a mystagogy of Life and Truth.

What “Abcd Efgh” thinks we mean is not what we mean. In saying that the person in question has left school and family and is living on their own and that this is not an ideal Christian life, we are not saying the person was wrong to leave. We are being descriptive. We do not know why the person left.

What we meant is that for a young person to leave school and family and live on their own is not ideal. It’s not the best situation for someone to be in. An analogy might make this clear. Someone has gangrene—let’s say they were caught in a blizzard and got frostbite. So the doctor cuts their leg off and gives them a motorized wheelchair. This is not an ideal personal situation. People should have two legs and walk around like everyone else.

Similarly in the ideal situation a young person needs their family, needs school. Circumstances may have been such that the person really had no choice but to leave—we are not judging—but the new situation is not ideal from a Christian or even from a psychological perspective. Indeed if you look at traditional cultures, not only is it the norm that the child stays with the parents until fairly old, but that child is even inserted within the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles and so on). Now sometimes this leads to intolerable situations—in Indian Hindu culture the bride goes to live with her husband who remains in the family home, where bride’s mother-in-law is often harsh with the bride—but it has to be recognized that although adolescence is a time of breaking away and establishing one’s own identity, it is also a time when the child needs emotional support, and in the case at hand, schooling to be able to take up a role in society. Moreover, as a practical matter for an adolescent to be living on their own is certainly opening them to sin.

Now as we pointed out, the person has spiritual interests and might even be in better shape than many still in school.

The person is where they are. God knows why they left and how intolerable the situation was. We don’t. But everyone on the face of the earth sometime has to turn to God. God meets us where we are.

Some Questions on the Jesus Prayer

We have received a very charming email from a woman we will call Janice Gaines. She is considering becoming Orthodox and has some questions. Here is the anonymized email, slightly edited for style:

Dear Orthodox Monk:

Providence has been indeed Divine these past few months.

Long, super long, very long story short: Orthodox Christianity has this born and raised Roman Catholic, though lapsed for decades, seriously interested and in consideration of conversion.

My journey has been fortuitous as it has led me to on-line places and videos rich with information, tradition, music, and serenity.

Finding your blog, quite by accident, earlier this evening had me reading page after page after page and finding a treasure trove of answers, further reading materials, meticulous writing (style), and a sense of humour I very much appreciate.

I am considering you, and of course, your blog, my blessing for the day.

Dear Orthodox Monk, I do have a question regarding the Jesus Prayer: In my on-line travels, logging thousands of pages already, I recall an older, mentor monk speaking about the Jesus Prayer being ‘dangerous’ for a novice (monk).

How can a prayer, especially one so tender, offered by a sinner to the Lord Jesus Christ, and begging His mercy, be considered dangerous?

If the Prayer is ‘dangerous’ on the lips of a novice, am I ‘safe’ in its recitation?

My Russian pronunciation is improving by leaps and bounds and I have found the greatest comfort in chanting the Jesus Prayer along with the Valaam Monastery Choir's twenty-one minute video (YouTube)—switching the last syllable to the feminine of course.

Too, in the pages of your blog, a young man remarked that in Greek Orthodoxy, the Jesus Prayer, at least to him, was considered a great ‘secret’ he feared would become trademarked if the true power of the Prayer were known.

I am confounded, dear Orthodox Monk, and I hope you will illuminate.

With sincere appreciation for your learned responses and the time and effort you expend on your blog, I thank you for considering my question for a reply.

God bless you.

Janice

Let us take the questions about the Jesus Prayer first. There are a number of stages in the practice of the Jesus Prayer, from simple group recitation perhaps with a YouTube video 20 minutes once or twice a day, to 24-hour a day, 7-day a week recitation in solitude a cave. At the latter stage the recitation is automatic even in sleep; the Prayer is repeated with the mind in the heart; the practitioner may be practising breath control. It should be clear to Janice that this advanced form of the Jesus Prayer is dangerous for the novice monk—and perhaps even for the advanced monk. So there is a spectrum of practice of the Jesus Prayer and cautions have to be understood in the context of where on the spectrum of practice the cautioner is positioning the practitioner. Moreover, no one can say where precisely on the spectrum the Jesus Prayer ceases to be safe and becomes dangerous. Many factors concerning the person praying enter into question—their personal history, their ecclesiastical situation, their medical health, whether they have a guide, whether they are leading a moral life, whether they go regularly to confession and communion, their family and work and economic situation and so on. For a healthy individual, there is much less danger repeating the Jesus Prayer 20 minutes a day than repeating it all the time in solitude. Similarly, risk in practising the Jesus Prayer is reduced for a member of the Orthodox Church without mental health problems who is leading a moral life. Similarly for someone who is getting along with their family, has a job they like, is economically self-sufficient and is generally not under stress.

We might make some remarks on factors that enter into the question of dangers of the repetition of the Jesus Prayer. However, we can only issue general guidelines; Janice needs a personal guide if she wants personal guidance.

There are several reasons why the Jesus Prayer might become dangerous. First of all, it is the repetition of a short sentence. The repetition itself necessarily stresses the brain. If there are genetically-based mental illnesses involved that stress might precipitate a crisis. This should be clear. But risk is increased if the person is under stress. This should also be clear.

Moreover, the formula of the Jesus Prayer is a formula which in Roman Catholic parlance is an act of repentance or contrition. In the healthy individual, no problem. But in a person with emotional problems, such an emphasis on repentance and contrition might provoke an emotional crisis—or, more likely, exacerbate an existing emotional crisis or condition.

Next, the Jesus Prayer is a prayer that arises out of Orthodox Egypt in the 4^th Century. It is very heavily contextualized by that fact in its historical development. Decontextualizing the Jesus Prayer—say by treating it one form among many of yoga—is fraught with spiritual and emotional and intellectual danger. It behoves Janice to make an effort to understand the Jesus Prayer from an Orthodox point of view, so that she prays it in an Orthodox way. This is indeed a general caution for all those practitioners, such as Eastern-Rite Catholics, Western-Rite Catholics, Protestants and others, who practise the Jesus Prayer ‘without the Orthodox mumbo-jumbo.’

And here we might remark on the trademarking of the Jesus Prayer that Janice alludes to. We don’t recall the passage in the blog she is referring to but the problem is that in America everyone wants the ‘quick fix,’ the easily used and marketed product. That seems to be what the person was referring to. However, the problem is that because of the contextualization of the Jesus Prayer in Orthodox tradition such a packaging is necessarily going to bastardize the practice of the Prayer. On the one hand, the purchaser gets watered-down adulterated goods; on the other hand the adulterated goods might be (spiritually) dangerous or even poisonous.

In this regard we might make a remark in passing that one ordinarily prays the Jesus Prayer in their native tongue. While we laud Janice on her studies of Russian and on her repeating the Jesus Prayer in Russian (necessary if she is going to be repeating it along with a video from Valaam Monastery), she should understand that in Elder Sophrony (Sakharov’s) monastery in Essex (Monastery of St John the Baptist, Tolleshunt Knights), the Prayer is repeated in a group setting in English even though Elder Sophrony was Russian, Athonite and a disciple of St Silouan the Athonite, also Russian.

Next, ultimately the practitioner of the Jesus Prayer is entering into conflict with the powers of darkness in a battle over their own soul. This is not the sort of language that is popular but it is the Orthodox tradition. Elder Sophrony’s book St Silouan the Athonite is good on this. The problem here is that the foolhardy practitioner might out of pride or conceit enter into battle without the support of the Great General, the Holy Spirit. Another metaphor might be that until you know how to swim, don’t jump in the deep end. So this is a caution saying that if you head for the more advanced end of the spectrum of practice before you are ready, you are in great danger: the downside risk is losing the battle and being possessed by a demon.

Next, because the advanced practitioner is entering into spiritual battle, their free will necessarily comes into play. An advanced practitioner of the Jesus Prayer is continually making choices as they deal with their ongoing thought processes in a conscious psychological state where they are faced with accepting or rejecting thoughts that come to them. They might make a mistake. Hence, before they enter into such an intense interior battle, they have to have their judgement trained.

Finally, advanced practitioners of the Jesus Prayer have visions. They might be real. So far so good. But they might be temptations. If the practitioner accepts the temptation, disaster. Again, St Silouan the Athonite is good on this. After an authentic vision of the risen Christ, St Silouan was over the years twice deceived by false visions while praying the Jesus Prayer in an advanced way.

Now let us turn to the broader issue of Janice’s possible conversion to Orthodoxy. First of all, a rule of thumb is that if she decides to remain Roman Catholic then she should practice a Roman Catholic form of spirituality. It simply doesn’t work to transplant an Orthodox tradition into Catholicism.

We would certainly encourage Janice to become Orthodox, but we would like to make the following remark. Orthodoxy, unless the person is drawn by the Holy Spirit, is a closed book. Even pious members of non-Orthodox Christian denominations can’t get past the surface of Orthodoxy, the ritual. They don’t see anything there beyond the ritual. Only from the inside of Orthodoxy is the mystagogy that is embedded in the ritual alive. And ultimately that is what Janice wants.

However, to make a genuine conversion to Orthodoxy, Janice must find Orthodoxy. This is not as easy as it might seem, there being in the United States a plethora of jurisdictions with all kinds of different issues—from rampant secularism to conservative ritualism and formalism. Janice has to pray for God to guide her steps.

Love as a Spiritual Lens Through Which to View the Gospel

We have been thinking about the role of love in the interpretation of the Gospel. It seems to us that the experience of love in the heart acts as a lens through which we perceive the lived experience of being Orthodox. Let us look carefully at this love. Diadochos of Photiki speaks of an intermediate stage where one has not attained to perfect love but one has an increase in love. This is a love given by the Holy Spirit. It is not a love of the flesh nor a natural (sentimental) love, although it may implicate elements of both.

Also, we are habitually praying with the mind in the heart, so this love is encountered in the heart consciously. So what we encounter is the experience of a partial love in a partially opened heart. Nothing is perfect. Much suffering has gone into the opening of the heart; there is no other way for the heart to open and without the heart being open this love cannot be lived. So we can consciously experience this love for others and for Christ. This experience acts as a spiritual lens through which we see the elements of the Gospel.

Let us look at some practical examples. Let us take the fundamental message of the Gospel: “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” We all know the story. Adam and Eve in Paradise were created perfect but spiritually infant-like. Eve was tempted and fell; she gave the fruit to Adam; he accepted and fell. Original Sin. Guilt. “All fall short of the Glory of God.” This is very much an element of the Protestant, especially Calvinist, interpretation of the Bible. We are to acknowledge our sinfulness before God; he will save us.

Now the issue is not the core of the Gospel; it is what it is. The issue is how we understand the core of the Gospel. With the love we spoke of—or without. For viewing the Gospel through the lens of this love in the heart, we understand that God’s primary motivation is that he loves us and wants us to be happy. So yes it is true; we have sinned in Adam and by ourselves. But God’s ultimate intention in telling us this is not to punish us but to save us. It’s just a spiritual fact that we cannot be saved unless we confess our sins.

It is very very hard for a man to acknowledge his sins and in the hands of an unloving preacher a man can be destroyed at this point. The unloving preacher might turn the sinner into twice as much an authoritarian hater of man as himself. However, if a man have love in his heart then he recognizes that the confession of sins from the heart, from the inner core of one’s being, is not self-destruction but the door to life. And he also recognizes that the only possible way that he can receive the forgiveness of sins is if he himself forgives those who have sinned against him. So as we have said, it is not the core message of the Gospel that has changed but how that message is perceived and lived: with love or without.

Let us take another example. Someone is celebrating the Divine Liturgy. As everyone knows, the Orthodox liturgy is complex. Someone without love can see it as a set of external rigid rules to be obeyed and argued about. They might even think that the heart of Orthodoxy is the flawless external performance of the Liturgy. However, a celebrant with love in his heart sees the typikon as the structure of an encounter with God in love. He knows which mistakes in the performance of the liturgy are important and which can be overlooked and perhaps corrected at another time.

A priest or Elder is hearing confessions. Here of course the confessor or Elder with and without love is well known by his fruits. The priest or Elder with love in his heart is easily approachable and non-condemnatory—although again he knows what is an important part of the Gospel that must be obeyed and what is secondary; he knows the intentions of the heart. We are not in the least suggesting that this love in the heart relatives or “modernizes” Christianity so that what was sin is no longer sin. But again, the confessor knows that God’s intention is to save the wayward sheep in the wilderness not to kill and eat it.

In some respects this love in the heart changes our perception of the Gospel in the way that a performer changes the feel of a musical melody. The melody is the same but the interpretation of love gives a different feel to the music.

Let us take another example. A young person has been brought up badly. They have left school and family and are living on their own. This is not an ideal Christian life. They have made an effort to resume their education but spiritually they are among lost ones. Perhaps, however, less lost than many still in school. They have spiritual interests. However, the first obstacle to their conversion is the notion of sin.

Will they find someone with love in their heart to guide them to Christ? For let us look at such a young person’s encounter with the notion of personal sin. A young person sins—in this day and age, who knows how? But they have spiritual interests. In some way God is calling to them, to their heart. God is calling them to Life. But the first thing they hear is, “Repent!” In the hands of the unloving preacher this is the road to an authoritarian judgmental Christianity; in the hands of the loving Elder or confessor, this is the beginning of a conversion to an Orthodoxy that is not formalist but a mystagogy of Life and Truth.

Return to the Blog

We just wanted to let our readers know that having finished our project we are back on the blog.

Someone has submitted a comment to Medical Aspects of the Monastic Vocation. We do not wish to publish it in full. In part it reads:

The late … in … suffered from bi-polar disorder. Much of her … [work was] produced during her manic periods, because she either did not or could not take the proper medication. And don't forget St. Pimen the Sickly of the Kievan Caves, a bed-bound invalid, who was miraculously tonsured by the Holy Angels themselves. The State Church of Greece, unless I am mistaken, has provision for women to be tonsured as nuns and maintain their own residences and livings. …

We will comment on this in a separate post.

In addition we would like to ask how many of our readers would be interested in a full, formatted print-out of the blog. Please let us know in a comment.

—Orthodox Monk

The Mission of the Church

The mission of the Church. We all know that Christ sent the Apostles to preach to all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. Going, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you (plural) all the days up to the consummation of the Age. Amen. (Mat. 28, 18–20.)

Of course the history of Christianity is intimately connected to the missionary activity of the various Christian denominations. What we would like to reflect on, however, is the nature of this mission of the Church.

Let us suppose that the Church is inserted into a city in the modern West the population of which is in part de-churched and in part dispersed among the various Protestant, largely, churches but also the Roman Catholic church. What is the mission of the Orthodox Church?

To a large extent, the various jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church view their mission as a ministry to the members of their ‘ethnic group of origin’. If it’s the Greeks, then they worry about the Greeks; if it’s the Russians, they worry about the Russians. If you’re not part of the ‘ethnic group of origin’ then we’re not interested. And to a large extent the mission is seen in ethnic terms: the Church is seen as a bearer of ethnic identity, even ethnic political identity. The church can even be seen as the bearer of a nationalist political ideal. Of course there are two major exceptions: the Orthodox Church in America and the Church of Antioch both have a consciously missionary orientation, largely Protestant influenced.

The Roman Catholic church on the other hand largely views itself in universalistic, transnational terms—although it is certainly not above getting mixed up in national or nationalist politics. It largely sees its missionary work in terms of developing an educational and/or health system that will bring unchurched locals into contact with the Catholic church in a positive way. In this model of evangelization, the long view is taken: the culture is to be Catholicized by the interaction of locals with the Roman Catholic services provided: the children who attend the Catholic school grow up with, hopefully, a positive view of the Roman Catholic church so that while those children might not themselves convert, the Roman Catholic church establishes a presence in the local society and eventually begins to make converts.

So far we have said nothing new, although some people might dispute our characterization of one or another Christian group’s practices.

What we would like to reflect on here, however, is the substance of St Paul’s remark in 2 Corinthians 5, 17-21:

If one is in Christ he is a new creation. The ancient things have passed; behold all things have become new. All things are from God who has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ, giving us the ministry of reconciliation. So that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their sins and establishing in us the word of reconciliation. Therefore we speak on behalf of Christ, as interceding with God on your behalf. We beseech on behalf of Christ: be reconciled to God. For he made him who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

It is perhaps not accidental that this message is at the core of those Protestant denominations that preach a born-again experience. And it is also true that as we have occasionally remarked that this Protestant born-again Christianity can be quite authoritarian, doing psychological violence to its converts.

It seems to us that the ministry of reconciliation of the Orthodox Church, which includes both its mission ad extra and its mission ad intra, is one of love. And the key to this love is not a sentimental love—a love which passes away—but the love given by the Holy Spirit. How is this love given? First of all this love is encountered as the presence of the Holy Spirit in the person preaching the Gospel. In the Orthodox Church, the transforming effect of the staretz or Elder is well known and well attested. In the West St Seraphim of Sarov is perhaps the best-known such staretz, although Elder Paisios of more recent times was very well known for the transforming effect of his love on his interlocutor. Although such startsy or Elders may perform miracles, it is their love which captivates and transforms the sinner, a love which is not judgemental nor of the flesh—a love which Elder Paisios himself called a Gospel love. This Gospel love is clearly the operation of the Holy Spirit in the staretz or Elder.

Now how do we appropriate that love for ourselves? Through Baptism. As we have been taught by the Fathers, it is baptism which grants us the forgiveness of sins, cleanses our soul and puts into our soul the Holy Spirit so that we are transformed. It is Baptism which makes us a new creation. It is baptism which reconciles us to God. However, as we have been taught, while Baptism grants us the forgiveness of sins, the restoration of the image of God in us and the pledge of the Holy Spirit, it is up to us to put into practice the word of the Gospel that the Kingdom of God is taken by violence: after baptism we must make an effort to restore our likeness to God by an essentially ascetical endeavour. This is true for all Orthodox Christians, not only monastics.

Moreover, since we are human and fallible, there is the ministry of reconciliation after our baptism through repentance, tears and the priest.

Although most Christian denominations maintain the same structure of belief as outlined here (except among Protestants concerning personal ascetical endeavour after Baptism), there is a quite different ‘flavour’ among various Christian groups as regards how this structure is actualized. The Roman Catholic church has historically been very rationalistic and legalistic; the various Protestant groups can be very sentimental or authoritarian. Here we want to emphasize the role of spiritual love in the Orthodox Church. Since this love is an operation of the Holy Spirit, it is not emotional but spiritual. Moreover, in the Orthodox Church, the encounter with Truth is neither humanly rationalistic nor humanly emotional. It is the encounter of the person with the Holy Spirit within. It is the Holy Spirit within us which bears witness to the truth of Orthodoxy, not the rational arguments of the Roman Catholic nor the emotional or authoritarian fixations of the born-again Protestant. Although love can perhaps be over-emphasized—sometimes the sinner should be reminded of the Judgement—in a healthy conversion or repentance it is ultimately the warmth of spiritual love which converts the sinner to Christ. For Christ is calling the sinner not to an authoritarian, emotionally violent and conflicted life but to participation in the inner life of the Holy Trinity through the Holy Spirit. Ultimately God is a God of love. It is for love that we were created. Our reconciliation to God is a reconciliation of the sinner to the love of God, to the love of the Father, so that the reconciled sinner loves God in return. And this love is a love to the Ages. A little earlier in 2 Corinthians 5, St Paul writes:

For we know that if our earthly dwelling of the tent [i.e. body] is dissolved we have a building from God, an eternal dwelling in the Heavens not made with hands. And for that reason we sigh in this dwelling, greatly desiring to be clothed with our dwelling which is from Heaven; and if clothed then we will not be found naked. And we who are in the body sigh, weighed down since we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal be swallowed up by Life. God is he who works us to this very thing, he who has also given us the pledge of the Spirit. Therefore seeing that sojourning in the body we are absent from the Lord we always take courage. For we walk by faith not by sight. But we take courage and rather look forward to departing from the body to sojourn with the Lord. And so whether sojourning or departing we act with a sense of honour so as to be pleasing to him. For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, each to obtain that which is appropriate to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Honour Your Father and Mother

We have received a very interesting email from a woman we shall call ‘Martha Simms’. Here is the email, with some of the details altered:

What exactly does it mean to ‘honour your mother and father?’ I was raised in a Protestant home. At the age of 50, I converted to the Eastern Orthodox faith. In doing so, I went against what my parents expected of me. My choice, also went against the wishes of my husband. Sometimes I still feel a ‘faded guilt’. Two of these dear ones, even yet, do not support my decision. Where have I done wrong?

Have I dishonoured my parents? What about my husband? I have been converted these past 10 years. I wish that I could get over these nagging thoughts.

Thank you,

Martha Simms

There are several reasons why we, Orthodox Monk, are so slow to reply to emails:

1. We are busy.

2. The emails ask difficult questions.

The issue here is the thought that “I have done wrong” in going against the wishes of my parents (and husband) in becoming a member of the Orthodox Church.

This is a temptation. Before we discuss how to respond to this type of temptation, first let us look at the objective situation.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (Exodus 20, 12, KJV.)

This is one of the ten commandments. It is one of the pillars of Judaism and Christianity. Although we do not know any specific reference we would also imagine that some form of it is important in Islam, and indeed in every other major religion. That is because it is part of the natural law—the law put into human nature by God when he created us—for us to respect our parents, just as it is part of the natural law for parents to love their children.

The issue of course is what it means for us to honour our father and mother: what is the scope of the commandment? Can our parents tell us who to marry? Can they force us to worship God according to their own beliefs? Can they tell us what to study in school to prepare for our life? Can they insist that they live with us? Can they tell us what job to take and what job not to take? What is legitimate for parents to demand of us and what is beyond the scope of the commandment?

There is also a similar issue here concerning one’s husband, since Paul is clear that the husband is head of the wife.

Let us look at how Our Lord answers this question:

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10, 33 – 39 KJV.)

It is clear that the commandment to love God and to confess Jesus Christ his Son takes precedence over the commandment to honour one’s father and mother: there is a limit to the scope of the commandment to honour one’s father and mother. The Gospel passage is clear that we must put our faith in Jesus Christ over honour for our parents—or even for our husband.

We enter the Orthodox Church because we believe that it is the truth; that in entering the Orthodox Church we confess Jesus Christ in fullness. Indeed the Rite of the Catechumen before Baptism is clear that in entering the Orthodox Church we are renouncing Satan and confessing the Lordship of Jesus Christ. A proper conversion to Orthodoxy is therefore a confession of Jesus Christ and covered by the Gospel passage.

Let us now look at some historical and cultural background.

Honour shown to parents was very important in the Hebrew tribal society apart from any moral issue of a direct commandment of God. The interpretation of the nature of that honour has changed over the centuries in Judaism. One need only reflect on the interpretation of the commandment among ultra-Orthodox Jews today in comparison to reformed Jews.

It is the same thing in Christianity. Interpretation of the commandment has always been affected by the cultural conditions of the time and place where the family was that is the subject of the commandment. This includes other aspects of the commandment, whether for example our parents can tell us what job to take.

Now Martha says she comes out of a Protestant background. We personally think that Martha has these thoughts because of how she was brought up as a child—her relations with her parents in infancy. Now Protestantism is very broad and child-rearing practices within Protestantism today vary from the very authoritarian to the very permissive. This is further complicated by the fact that child-rearing practices and the interpretation of the commandment also vary according to social class, culture (ethnic group) and type of Protestant group that one might have belonged to. For although Protestantism is largely a matter of spiritual individualism, some strands of it have been very authoritarian.

Hence the historical background for understanding this commandment begins with an understanding of Hebrew tribal society and continues through the centuries with the nature of paternal authority in the Israel of Jesus’ time and continues through the Protestant Reformation to today. Similarly in traditionally Orthodox countries this commandment might be understood in different ways depending on class, culture and historical period.

Now depending on how much of a problem these thoughts are, Martha might simply employ a strategy of deflecting the thoughts in a way we will explain, or she might find it necessary to consult with a therapist. However, given her age we think that she just has to accept that the thoughts are going to bother her until they get fed up and leave her alone.

This is how Martha can deflect the thoughts. She should write the Gospel passage down on a piece of paper. She should put it in her pocket. Then when the thoughts bother her, she should pull the piece of paper out of her pocket and read it. Preferably out loud but if she is somewhere where that isn’t possible, then silently. She should repeat reading the passage until the thoughts get fed up and go. Of course if Martha is driving on the free-way or piloting an aeroplane at 30,000 feet she’ll just have to ignore the thoughts and get on with business until she gets to where she’s going. Now this might seem simple-minded, but it is actually the application of an ancient Orthodox practice.

Question Time

Someone has sent us a question. In full the email reads: 

Where ru a monk 

Answer in full: 

Here

Prelest and Positive Thinking

Those of our readers who want to know why we’ve been silent may be pleased to see that we have taken time off from our current time-consuming project to answer an email we have just received.  There are a number of other emails that are in the queue but we have been too busy to deal with them.  We hope to get to them in due time.

Someone, let us call her ‘Martha’, has written to us.  We replied to her as follows:

Our policy is only to answer emails publicly on the blog.  We remove all information that could be used to identify you.  We also edit for clarity and style.  Is this acceptable to you?

To which Martha replied:

Sure, as long as you keep my identity private!  Thank you!

Here is Martha’s email, extensively edited for clarity:

Hi Orthodox Monk,

I’m curious to know why you guys are promoting the ‘positive thinking’ idea that your neo-elders are teaching.  Such as in the books

Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain

The Gurus, the Young Man and Elder Paisios

and the book Wounded by Love.

These teachings are nothing more than ‘New-Age’ and ‘Occult’ terminologies as well as practices!  They have never before been used by true orthodox elders and none of the holy fathers spoke about such things nor are they found anywhere in the Holy Bible.  To me this indicates that Orthodox Christianity is being blended in with the Occult, and thus slowly taken us away from God.  Are we not supposed to trust God in all matters?  Not our own self, and our positive or negative thoughts, given us through our own man-made power?  To attract this or that from energies or within ourselves (a power or energy that we do not possess) yet Elder Paisios claims that we do.  This is a demonic and completely un-Orthodox teaching!!!

Are these new elders in prelest?  Maybe you could shed some light as to why it is not only being promoted but encouraged for spiritual enlightenment.

And while we’re on the topic of enlightenment, here is my next question: why and how do all of Elder Ephraim’s Abbots and Abbesses obtain the gift of clairvoyance so easily?  Isn’t this supposed to be given (maybe) only to those who have accomplished great ascetic struggles in extreme humility, and only if God wills?  Not every elder obtains all the holy gifts or even seeks them, yet the Ephraim monastics work in a way opposite to this.  This is the exact same way that the Charismatic Protestant movement goes about obtaining the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway I didn’t mean to upset anyone; I’m only inquiring so as to obtain true answers and knowledge for myself (I hope in fact that you are a real monk).

Asking you to please keep my identity private.

Thank you, and waiting for your response.

Martha

Let us take the issues one by one.

First we didn’t realize that we, Orthodox Monk, were promoting the ‘positive thinking’ that is found in the books that Martha lists.  Also we didn’t realize that we were promoting the ‘neo-elders’ that Martha speaks about.  Indeed, as near as we can make out we have made a serious effort over the years not to promote or to denigrate one or another elder.  Guess we weren’t as careful as we thought we were.

Now, let us run through these books to make sure that we’re all on the same page.  The first book, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, was written by Hieromonk Christodoulos who at the time he knew Elder Paisios was a monk at the Monastery of Koutloumousiou, a short walk from Elder Paisios’ cell or house.  We understand that Hieromonk Christodoulos met with Elder Paisios a number of times and that he took notes of his conversations as soon as he returned to Koutloumousiou after speaking with the Elder.  Our friend George who knows far more about Mt Athos than we do says that the conversations that Hieromonk Christodoulos presents ‘ring true’ as presenting the real Elder Paisios.  We ourselves have not read the next book,  The Gurus, the Young Man and Elder Paisios, and have no comment on it.

The third book, Wounded by Love, is the English translation of an early edition of a book called in Greek Bios kai Logoi.  That book came about as follows.  Elder Porphyrios permitted two of his disciples, now nuns, to record a number of conversations with him.  The transcripts of those conversations became the book in question.  So the book is really just the transcripts of a number of conversations or discourses of Elder Porphyrios with two of his disciples.  It is not a ‘set-piece’ theological work by the Elder.

We will discuss Elder Paisios, Elder Porphyrios and Elder Ephraim separately.

Now the first point to make is that Elder Paisios wrote a number of books himself, which are to be found in English translation.  It might be useful for Martha to find these books and read them so as to get direct from the horse’s mouth what Elder Paisios thought and taught.  Here is a list of those books (all available in English):

Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian

Elder Hadji-Georgis the Athonite

Athonite Fathers and Athonite Matters

Epistles

These books are published by the Holy Hesychasterion of St John the Theologian, Souroti, Greece.  That is where Elder Paisios was buried in accordance with his own wishes.

There is also a series of books published by the Holy Hesychasterion of St John the Theologian that have been constructed after the Elder’s death by assembling on a thematic basis notes and recordings of sayings by Elder Paisios collected by the nuns of the Hesychasterion, who are the Elder’s disciples and formal literary executors.  While these books are certainly of some weight in understanding Elder Paisios’ teaching, they would rank second to the books actually written and edited by Elder Paisios while he was alive.  The volumes presently published are (all available in English unless otherwise noted):

Spiritual Counsels 1: With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man

Spiritual Counsels 2: Spiritual Awakening

Spiritual Counsels 3: Spiritual Struggle

Spiritual Counsels 4: Family Life

Spiritual Counsels 5: Passions and Virtues (not translated)

In the third rank would be books written by someone who knew Elder Paisios and decided to write a book about him.  Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain by Hieromonk Christodoulos, discussed above, would belong to this category.  Among such books, the best in our opinion is the one by Elder Isaac called Elder Paisios of Mount Athos.  Elder Isaac, since deceased, was a personal disciple of Elder Paisios.

It should be noted that when we recommend a book, we recommend it in the original language.  We have no opinion one way or another on the quality of a translation.  A translation is an interpretation of the author’s meaning, and in the case of a group translation, an interpretation by a committee.

Now let us begin with Martha’s criticisms, as near as we can make them out.  First of all, we were rather surprised to be taxed with teaching the doctrine of Elder Paisios on positive and negative thoughts.  We didn’t think we had addressed the issue.  Be that as it may, we understand Elder Paisios’ teaching to be as follows.  A monk or nun or layperson would come to Elder Paisios and express dissatisfaction with their elder, their abbot, their abbess, their spouse, their children, their parents, their job and so on.  Often, we imagine—we weren’t there—these people would be depressed and would want to ‘vent’.  Forgive us, Martha, but your remarks seem similar.  Now what Elder Paisios would say—as we understand it!—to these people is that they were allowing themselves to be swept up in negative thoughts.  What they should do, Elder Paisios would say, was concentrate on positive thoughts.

Martha thinks this is wrong, New-Age and Occult if we understand her correctly.  Certainly not to be found among the elders of old and not to be found in Scripture.

The basis of Elder Paisios’ teaching is to be found in a tradition in the Philokalia that goes back to very early times.  The great systematizer of this method as it entered into the Orthodox Hesychastic tradition is Evagrius Ponticus (344 – 399) but the method is also found in Neilus of Ankara (died 430) and Mark the Ascetic (5^th Century), of whose works it was said, ‘Sell everything and buy Mark.’  The method is referenced in Diadochos of Photiki (5^th Century) and other writers of the period; the fullest discussion is perhaps to be found in the Ladder of Divine Ascent by John of Sinai (7^th Century).  It is an integral part of the Hesychastic program of Hesychius of the Burning Bush (8^th Century).  It is referenced by the Gregory Palamas (14^th Century).  So the foundation of what Elder Paisios is saying is certainly Orthodox and certainly taught by some very big names in Orthodox spirituality.

In brief what these authors discuss is the genesis of an impassioned thought in the mind.  Normally the cause of such an impassioned thought is a temptation by a demon, although Evagrius for example recognizes that people can quite often get on with a tempting thought without a demon on the basis of their own emotional tendencies to sin.  One of the demons is specialized for sowing thoughts of sorrow (depression) but there are other demons of envy, malice, rancour and so on.  And the demons would have no work if we didn’t have emotional tendencies to sin that corresponded to their specialties.

The best treatment of the emotional tendencies to sin and the evolution of a tempting thought is found in the Ladder of Divine Ascent.  John of Sinai’s treatment is largely based on Evagrius although he produces a much more refined analysis.

So basically what Elder Paisios was saying to these people is that they were allowing themselves to engage with tempting thoughts sown by a demon or by their own emotional tendencies to sin.  Since that was not healthy and interfering with these peoples’ lives, better for them to make an effort to think positive thoughts instead of the negative thoughts sown by a demon, their own passions or even on account of some biochemical imbalance.  (Since Elder Paisios on occasion sent people to see a secular psychiatrist he would surely have recognized the possibility that there might be an organic issue that needed medical attention.)

We ourselves would remark that there are people who always look on the dark side, always focusing on what can go wrong.  There are also people who always look on the bright side—the personal executioner employed by the late Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, was said to be a jovial fellow with nary a depressive bone in his body—and that is probably preferable to being depressive.  However, to make a serious decision it helps to be realistic, neither unrealistically depressive nor unrealistically optimistic.

Now this is our interpretation and we see nothing wrong with counselling people not to succumb to the temptation to think negative thoughts.  Now Martha is correct that for most people the only way for them to resist such negative thoughts is to pray.  We doubt that Elder Paisios would disagree.  However his point, we think, is that unless you recognize that you are being foolish in accepting to think such negative thoughts it’s not even going to occur to you to ask Jesus to save you from them.

Now for the rest, we do not know what Martha thinks that Elder Paisios taught that is so objectionable about inner powers and so forth.  We are quite sure, however, that Elder Paisios was quite Orthodox.

Now, as for Elder Porphyrios.  We are not aware of a similar teaching about negative thoughts by Elder Porphyrios, and certainly not in Bios kai Logoi.  What we recall from that book is a discussion of the eternal Church, Elder Porphyrios’ reliving of the Apocalypse to John on Patmos and so on.  Of course we could be wrong.  It’s been a while since we read the book.

Now is Elder Porphyrios teaching New Age and Occultism?  We hope not.  He was just made a saint of the Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarch at the beginning of December, less than a month ago.  So it’s not Elder Porphyrios any more, it’s Saint Porphyrios.

Next, Elder Ephraim of Arizona.  Martha’s complaint does not seem to be with Elder Ephraim himself, who George tells us is highly respected on Mt Athos, as having been a major factor in the renewal of Mount Athos by the disciples of Elder Joseph the Hesychast.  Martha’s complaint seems to be that all of Ephraim’s Abbots and Abbesses are also clairvoyant.  Too easy she thinks.  We ourselves have no doubt that Elder Ephraim is a holy man.  We ourselves do not doubt that he is also clairvoyant.  However, we have no information on his disciples, if they are clairvoyant and if so where they got it.  The statement in the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St John of Sinai, that it is shameful for an elder to pray that a disciple receive a charism that he himself does not have, says to us that if Elder Ephraim’s disciples are genuinely clairvoyant it is because Elder Ephraim prayed for them to receive the charism.  However, as we said, we have no opinion on the matter.

What Martha could do is ask Elder Ephraim.

Now what about us?  Orthodox Monk?  Martha is worried that we might be a disciple of Elder Ephraim.  Well, again, she could always ask Elder Ephraim.  For how would she know if we were telling the truth if we said we were?  Or if we said we weren’t?

We said all we have to say on our monastic state and affiliation in a post called Who is Orthodox Monk?.

Martha replied with two emails, which she has also given us permission to discuss publicly.

Here they are, again edited extensively for clarity:

[1^st Email:]  Thanks for posting in reply, but let me correct you, Orthodox Monk.  I never said or implied that I was worried about your being affiliated with Elder Ephraim.  I only asked you to which monastery you belong (meaning name and country).  I did also ask from curiosity if you were under Ephraim (which you still have not answered).  Please do not confuse my words.

Secondly you made it sound like I was attacking the elders, which clearly I wasn’t!  If you read the books I mentioned you would clearly see where I got my questions of concern.  As for the Ephraimites I am sure you have heard all the rumours circulating about them, especially the death of Scott Nevins.  Now why couldn’t Elder Ephraim save his life?  And have helped him since he lived there 7 years?  That is, if Elder Ephraim is not in prelest?  Before you judge anyone on your blog or accuse them of criticizing, just remember that just because it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t make it any less true.  I thank you for your response but obviously you are with world orthodoxy (ecumenism) so I expected no less.

[2^nd Email:]  Also one more thing: There are many cults and false elders out there.  There is nothing wrong with people doing their own homework by asking questions to learn and to discern the spirit of the times.  If this troubles anyone then this is an indication that they are trying to mask something.  True Orthodox Christian people should be proud of those who ask questions and want to learn the true meaning of things.  They should encourage questions and not oppose them, and not expect only blind obedience to whoever claims to be an elder or even Orthodox.

Here’s our answer:  Martha, first of all, no one is obliged to read our blog.  If you don’t like it you don’t have to read it.  We have written several hundred thousand words on the blog (enough for a number of books) and everything is there for anyone who wants to read it.  Our views should be quite clear.  No, we haven’t given you a direct answer whether we are or are not affiliated with Elder Ephraim.  To do so one way or another would be to say more about ourselves than we care to.  If that bothers you, then stop reading the blog.

Next, of the three books you mentioned, we have read two; we haven’t read the Gurus book.  It was admittedly some time ago that we read the two books but we don’t remember any questions arising in our mind of the sort you are posing.

Next, no we are not up to date on ‘the Ephraimites I am sure you have heard all the rumours circulating about them, especially the death of Scott Nevins’.  By and large we avoid that.  Sorry.  In particular we have not studied what happened in the case of Scott Nevins and have no intention of doing so.  Nor do we intend to spend any time on the possibility that Elder Ephraim is in prelest.  It’s just not who we are, Martha.

Next, you write ‘Before you judge anyone on your blog or accuse them of criticizing, just remember that just because it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t make it any less true.  I thank you for your response but obviously you are with world orthodoxy (ecumenism) so I expected no less.’  We are not sure what you mean.  Do you mean that we are criticizing someone else or that we are criticizing you?  Our strongest criticism of you was that you have a tendency to listen to your bad thoughts.  If it is you that you mean we have been criticizing, then ‘because it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t make it any less true’ suggests that you have had some bad experience, unless we completely misunderstand what you are saying.  If you have had a bad experience, then we suggest you speak to a clergyman face to face.  A blog is not the place to sort out personal bad experiences.

Martha replied.  We will let her have the last word:

I did not have nor do I have any intention to read your blog.  I only wrote a simple email on the ‘positive thinking’ idea, which you took way out of proportion to my intent, in cold heartless replies.  No, I have not had any bad experiences and even if I had that would not excuse the fact that the Ephraimites are in prelest!  Moreover, there are many complaints about them from thousands who have had similar experiences.  You can choose to cover up for the wrongdoings of the Ephraimites but just don’t forget that people are not stupid!!!  The truth always comes out in the end!  And I don’t even believe that you live in an Orthodox monastery let alone that you are a tonsured monk, just going by your cold accusatory, assuming replies.  I am done talking with you!

Martha later sent us another email:

Dear Orthodox Monk:

I have realized that I made a terrible mistake with regard to my ‘positive thinking’ query and about Elder Ephraim being in prelest.  I did some more research and I have found out that I was terribly wrong.  Thank you.