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.

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.

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.

Non-closed Communion 2

There are two separate issues in Jonah Wilders’ first email. First is the objective reality of what Jonah describes about inter-communion in a small Orthodox parish with a number of mixed marriages. Second is the fact that as Jonah later remarks, it appears his fear was, for the moment at least, unfounded. Let us dispose of the second issue first.

There is a special kind of temptation that sneaks up on recent converts. It is a temptation that something is happening that is not according to the rules. That is not to say that the rules are unimportant; quite the contrary, the temptation works because the rules are important. In such a case where a recent convert feels that something might not be happening according to the rules they should discuss it with the parish priest, with whom they presumably have a trust relationship since otherwise why did they join that parish? If necessary they should also discuss it with older trusted members of the parish and even with the Bishop. In other words in such a case a person should establish the objective reality of the situation in such a way as to send the temptation running through shining the light of reality on the situation.

Now let us look at the first issue, the objective issue of inter-communion in an Orthodox setting. We would like our readers to reread Some ranting and some questions 2 before continuing since we will be treating this post as a continuation of that one: the underlying issues are closely related.

In the classical understanding of the Orthodox Church, one becomes Orthodox by baptism, as discussed in Some ranting … 2. Of course the Orthodox Church chrismates immediately after baptism so that the mystery that corresponds to the laying on of hands by the Apostles for the reception of the Holy Spirit is performed right after baptism. The Orthodox believer, even the infant, is a full member of the Orthodox Church at this stage. The next stage, performed immediately after baptism and chrismation even for infants, is for the newly received member of the Orthodox Church to be communicated with the Body and Blood of Christ. It is the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ that perfects the joining of the newly received member of the Orthodox Church to Christ. As Christ himself says:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6, 51–59, KJV)

In the classical self-understanding of the Orthodox Church, communion is received after baptism and chrismation. It is never received before. Moreover, the Apostle Paul writes the following:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it,] and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it,] in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink [this] cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Corinthians 11, 23–30, KJV)

So on the one hand the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ joins us to Christ and to the other members of the Orthodox Church; on the other hand it is extremely dangerous for someone to receive the Body and Blood of Christ who is not a member of the Orthodox Church, or even a member of the Orthodox Church but unworthy. This is not merely a matter of ‘obeying the rules’ but clearly a matter of the danger of ‘eating and drinking damnation’ with the possible result that the person become ‘weak and sickly’ or even die. There’s a downside risk to the person doing this. However, it should be pointed out that confession before each communion is not a dogmatic requirement. What is a dogmatic requirement is that there should not be serious unforgiven sin before communion.

Now Jonah describes a situation of a struggling parish in a country where the Orthodox are in a small minority, and where many of the parishioners are married to non-Orthodox and where the children of such marriages might not even be raised Orthodox. It so happens that Jonah’s country is very secularized with a very small minority of practising Christians of any denomination.

Now some very liberal priests and even Bishops of the Orthodox Church are willing to give communion to non-members of the Orthodox Church. This is completely separate from the issue we discussed in Some ranting … 2 concerning how non-Orthodox Christians are to be received into the Orthodox Church. In other words it might be quite easy to become Orthodox in these circumstances but the person approaching for Orthodox communion might not want to become Orthodox. But since they are Christian they are communicated anyway. We have not studied the reasoning of these priests and Bishops but we suspect that what is involved is an extreme form of the ‘Branch Theory’. They believe, we think, that the non-Orthodox Christian is equally Christian with the Orthodox and is fully entitled to receive Orthodox communion. These people seem to believe that divisions among Christians are a matter of unimportant ecclesiastical politics which can be dispensed with in the interests of higher spiritual practice.

The Roman Catholic position is a little better thought out. The Roman Catholic Church permits members of the Roman Catholic Church to receive Orthodox Communion if a Roman Catholic church and communion are unavailable (we don’t think that there has to be a serious situation such as a danger of death). This is consistent with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. However, the Roman Curia didn’t bother to get permission from the Orthodox Church for this practice before promulgating it, so we have a situation in majority Orthodox countries where Roman Catholics approach the Orthodox chalice with a good Roman Catholic conscience only to be turned away because they are not permitted by the Orthodox Church to receive communion.

Of course the Roman Catholic Church reciprocates, happily communicating Orthodox, something the Orthodox Church considers a serious sin. We know of a case where a member of the Roman Catholic Church was living in Saudi Arabia and attending a ‘secret’ Roman Catholic church—the Saudi authorities knew about it but turned a blind eye to the presence of a practising Roman Catholic priest on their soil. However this person later thought of becoming Orthodox. He told us that he discussed with the local Roman Catholic priest the idea that the company that was sponsoring the ‘secret’ Roman Catholic church—along with the ‘secret’ Protestant church and pastor—could arrange for a ‘secret’ Orthodox church and ‘secret’ Orthodox priest to complete the set of ‘secret’ Christian churches. The Roman Catholic priest, who was happily communicating members of the Greek Orthodox Church, was none too happy with the idea.

Moreover, in more Protestant ecumenical circles there is a tendency to want to use inter-communion as a means of ecumenism, as a means of establishing closer ecclesiastical relations among Christian denominations, rather than to see it as the prize to be attained once the ecumenical movement reaches its goal of the full union of all Christians. Moreover, for obscure reasons, the ‘Holy Grail’ of inter-communion for some of these ecumenists is inter-communion with the Orthodox. We occasionally hear of episodes where a non-Orthodox sneaks up to the Orthodox chalice knowing full well that they are not allowed hoping that the presiding priest or even Bishop will communicate them anyway so as to avoid an embarrassing scene. Sometimes they do.

The Orthodox Church has never accepted that non-members of the Orthodox Church can receive communion in the Orthodox Church. There is no sense that this is an elastic norm that can in certain cases be relaxed by economy.

Now clearly the parish situation that Jonah is describing is even more complicated because of the issue of mixed marriages. However, the fact remains that the Orthodox Church has never sanctioned the communion of non-Orthodox.

Let us look at what Jonah writes:

… If heterodox are admitted to communion is this something we should just accept as being in line with God’s will as revealed to the bishop and priest?

In our opinion, no.

Or should this matter be taken up with the priest and bishop and synod if necessary?

Knowing something about Jonah’s ecclesiastical situation we would recommend discussing it with the Bishop when and if there is a serious issue.

Or would it be better to leave things alone and find another parish which does not have this ‘custom’?

In our opinion, yes. If they are set on doing inter-communion, the best thing is to go elsewhere, although admittedly there may be practical problems in a setting in which the Orthodox are a small minority.

Is it spiritually damaging to partake of communion when we suspect that there may be heterodox partaking of it although we lack certainty?

In our opinion, no. At the point that it becomes objectively clear that the practice is happening, then we think that a member of the parish would have to inquire into what is going on and, if the practice is systematic and intentional, to go elsewhere. If of course there is some confusion and a mistake has been made, that is quite different.

In summary, then, my questions/concerns are:

1a. If we think communion is being given to heterodox in our parish, is this permissible by economy and if so do we have a duty to understand what this economy comprises?

In our opinion no for inter-communion by economy but yes for a duty to understand what this economy is all about. See above.

1b. If communion for heterodox cannot be given ‘by economy’ should we raise this with the parish council, priest, bishop in that order?

In our opinion, yes. See above.

1c. Is this really none of our business as parishioners and if we are properly prepared, through confession prayer and fasting, should we receive the Eucharist with joy and thanks and not concern ourselves with anything else?

In our opinion, it is our business. See above.

2. If we have received communion at the same time as heterodox does this invalidate the sacrament and/or require us to undertake some form of penance even though we did so unknowingly?

In our opinion, no. The mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ can not be invalidated in this sense. It remains the Body and Blood of Christ. But see what St Paul says above about receiving unworthily. If someone who is not Orthodox receives communion without our knowledge, that has nothing to do with us. But if we know and consent then there is an issue with our own conscience.

I sincerely hope that my questions are, and continue to remain, hypothetical. I apologize in advance if it appears that I am judging others or jumping to conclusions. It's not a ‘them’ and ‘us’ situation. Though myself unworthy I am never the less concerned for the spiritual welfare of all in our parish, Orthodox and heterodox.

We did not have the sense that there was any judgement.

Pretty quiet on your blog...

Well, we’ve managed to wake up.

I can't find any evidence of inter-communion in my parish so I've stopped worrying about it.

We were not surprised. It seemed likely to us that this was the temptation spoken of earlier.

Of more concern is legislation to be introduced about same-sex marriage which will have an impact on education and further undermine family values. Trying to raise this in the parish has only been divisive with some concerned that we’re being ‘obsessive’.

In our opinion, this is a serious matter of Orthodox morality. However, there is another temptation, that of joining with hard-right Christian Protestants motivated by a spirit of pride and hatred to engage in unseemly political agitation. As we remarked in Some ranting … 2, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and Love; it is not a spirit of pride, anger and hatred—or even of unseemly political agitation in the streets.

So not much I can do about this (Orthodox count for very few votes in relation to the population of my country) except pray that God will have mercy on us.

May God help you, your parish and your country.

Non-closed Communion 1

We promised someone whose email we received some time ago to discuss it on the blog, with our correspondent’s permission of course. It strikes us that the topic raised in his email forms a natural sequel to our previous two posts concerning Jennifer Wilders. Our correspondent has no connection to Jennifer Wilders but the issues he raises are so related to the topics that Jennifer is raising—of the sort that Jennifer will encounter in her own country if she becomes Orthodox—that we have made our correspondent Jonah Wilders, Jennifer’s brother. He isn’t. Jennifer and Jonah have never heard of each other. They live in different countries. Again, we will present the email in the first post and then discuss it in the second post.

Subject: non-closed communion

From: jonah.wilders@nomail.com

Date: 13/11/12

To: orthodox.monk.blog@gmail.com

Dear Orthodox Monk,

In my country Orthodox parishes are often quite small. The church I regularly attend averages about 30 people every Sunday. The general level of piety varies quite a bit. Some people attend church regularly, keep a prayer rule, attend confession, keep the fasts and gives alms when they can; some don’t.

Confession is not required before communion. Many married couples are in ‘mixed’ marriages where one partner may be Orthodox and the other heterodox. Children in these marriages may not necessarily be brought up Orthodox. Hence a significant proportion of our congregation may from time to time be heterodox. There is quite a bit of support for the ecumenical movement. I mention all this to put what follows in context.

It seems likely that at some point in the future closed communion will be relaxed, if this has not happened already. By this I mean that ‘special cases’ could be made, not that anyone would be free to take communion regardless of faith. Now there might be pastoral reasons why this would occur (via economy). I have only been Orthodox for two years or so (I’m no expert) but my understanding is that the Orthodox Church requires all communicants to be members of the Orthodox church (why convert otherwise?). If heterodox are admitted to communion is this something we should just accept as being in line with God’s will as revealed to the bishop and priest? Or should this matter be taken up with the priest and bishop and synod if necessary? Or would it be better to leave things alone and find another parish which does not have this ‘custom’? Is it spiritually damaging to partake of communion when we suspect that there may be heterodox partaking of it although we lack certainty?

In summary, then, my questions/concerns are:

1a. If we think communion is being given to heterodox in our parish, is this permissible by economy and if so do we have a duty to understand what this economy comprises?

1b. If communion for heterodox cannot be given ‘by economy’ should we raise this with the parish council, priest, bishop in that order?

1c. Is this really none of our business as parishioners and if we are properly prepared, through confession prayer and fasting, should we receive the Eucharist with joy and thanks and not concern ourselves with anything else?

2. If we have received communion at the same time as heterodox does this invalidate the sacrament and/or require us to undertake some form of penance even though we did so unknowingly?

I sincerely hope that my questions are, and continue to remain, hypothetical. I apologize in advance if it appears that I am judging others or jumping to conclusions. It's not a ‘them’ and ‘us’ situation. Though myself unworthy I am never the less concerned for the spiritual welfare of all in our parish, Orthodox and heterodox.

Many thanks.

Best Wishes

Jonah

Subject: Re: non-closed communion

From: jonah.wilders@nomail.com

Date: 12/02/13

To: Orthodox Monk

Dear Orthodox Monk,

Pretty quiet on your blog...

I can't find any evidence of inter-communion in my parish so I've stopped worrying about it. Of more concern is legislation to be introduced about same-sex marriage which will have an impact on education and further undermine family values. Trying to raise this in the parish has only been divisive with some concerned that we’re being ‘obsessive’. So not much I can do about this (Orthodox count for very few votes in relation to the population of my country) except pray that God will have mercy on us.

Best Wishes

Jonah

Some ranting and some questions 2

Let us begin with the issue on everyone’s mind: why we say ‘we’ instead of ‘I’. Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary says about ‘we, pronoun’ (quotations by the OED giving usage omitted):

…

2. Used by a single person to denote himself:

a. by a sovereign or ruler. Often defined by the name or title added.

b. by a speaker or writer, in order to secure an impersonal style and tone, or to avoid the obtrusive repetition of ‘I’. (The OED notes about this usage: ‘Regularly so used in editorials and unsigned articles in newspapers and other periodicals, where the writer is understood to be supported in his opinions by the editorial staff collectively.’)

We do not suffer from multiple personality disorder. There is only one of us. Of course we are not a king—unless king of the blog, which is a far cry from King of some country. Of course we are not on the editorial staff of some collective periodical, nor do we speak on behalf of anyone but ourselves. Now we find Jennifer’s email charming; and we prefer to say that ‘we’ find her email charming, speaking as an Orthodox monk, than ‘I’ find her email charming, speaking as a man who one day might meet Jennifer. For us, the ‘I’ is far too personal, being suitable for a blog in which the author discusses how he felt when he got up in the morning, what he ate for breakfast and what he did over the weekend. So it’s ‘we’ on the blog.

Jennifer’s email is quite apt, pointing out a very serious problem within the Orthodox Church. But writing a post explaining the problem and the solution is difficult, very difficult. If it were easy, Jennifer would already have found a solution: one would be already waiting for her somewhere.

Let’s start of with the self-identity of the Church. For the Orthodox Church, the core statement of belief is the Nicene Creed. It is the Nicene Creed that a person must ultimately confess in order to become a catechumen in the Orthodox Church; today the service of the catechumen is usually done just before the actual baptism so one might think it is part of the actual service of baptism. It isn’t. Anciently there could be years between the two services. In the service of the catechumen the person, facing west, renounces the Devil and spits on the Devil, and then turning to the east and facing the icon of Christ formally joins himself to Christ. In infant baptism this is done on the child’s behalf by the godparent. The person then recites the Nicene Creed as their profession of faith; the godparent does so in the case of an infant. Then the priest—saint or sinner; it doesn’t matter for the efficacy of the prayers—reads certain prayers over the person. So if Jennifer or Tess or anyone else wants to become Orthodox, the Nicene Creed is the bottom line on what they have to believe.

Now the classical belief of the Orthodox Church is that it itself is in whole and not in part the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ confessed in the Nicene Creed. The classical belief of the Orthodox Church is not that it is a part of the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ but that it is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Moreover, the Orthodox Church is largely silent theologically on the status of professed Christians outside the Orthodox Church.

This Orthodox belief is the same belief that the Roman Catholic Church has about itself. The Roman Catholic Church believes (Vatican II) that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church also believes that non-Roman Catholic Christians are joined in some fashion to the Roman Catholic Church whether they know it or not. The Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ for all Christians whether they know it or not. This of course makes for a collision with the Orthodox belief: there can’t be two ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches’.

The Anglican view is that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ subsists in various co-equal branches, among which branches are the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Anglican or Episcopal national churches. According to this view (called the ‘Branch Theory’ by its detractors), there is a spiritual unity among these branches so that the sum of them is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, even though they co-exist in visible disunity.

The Calvinist view is that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ is comprised of all believers who have been ‘born again’ through accepting salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, something given to them by an eternal personal predestination to salvation. Hence, according to the Calvinist view the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ picks and chooses among the members of the various Protestant denominations, selecting those who are born again. It might also pick and choose among Catholics and Orthodox if they too have been ‘born again’ according to Calvinist criteria (not just baptized—some Calvinists even give greater spiritual weight to the ‘born again’ experience over the actual practice of baptism, treating baptism as mere confirmation of the born-again experience). This would explain, among those Calvinists that believe in the Rapture (a belief dating from the 19^th Century that entails a two-part Second Coming), why they believe that among all the Christian denominations some persons will be raptured up when Christ comes back the first time and some won’t: the born-again will be raptured up and the non-born-again whether baptized or not won’t. It also explains why the Rapturists are so sure that they themselves will be raptured up: they know they have been ‘born again’.

The various beliefs above are matters in what is called ‘ecclesiology’, the theology of the nature of the Church. It is clear that these various ecclesiological beliefs are incompatible. What to do? More conservative Orthodox theologians gravitate to the traditional view that the Orthodox Church is the ‘One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ However, there is a tendency among Orthodox theologians who are more ecumenically minded to gravitate to either the ‘Branch Theory’ or the Roman Catholic understanding of the nature of the Church. But of course this is not something that can be stated out loud. Moreover, it should be understood that the ecumenical movement is really a Protestant movement in its historical origins, so that it would tend either to a ‘Branch Theory’ ecclesiology or even to a Calvinist ecclesiology.

One of the issues underlying the problem Jennifer is addressing is that compared to the Roman Catholic Church, or even the Lutheran Church in its various forms, Orthodoxy is not as centrally organized. There is no central authority that imposes a uniformity of opinion either on theologians or on the various jurisdictions. This results in an openness to outside influences, usually Western Christian influences (we are speaking descriptively and historically here). Hence, we find a multiplicity of theological currents and ecclesiastical practices within the Orthodox Church.

Now the point at which the ecclesiological theories sketched above collide in a practical way is in the reception of Christian converts. Everyone agrees that non-Christians are to be received by baptism. However, the Nicene Creed professes ‘one baptism for the remission of sins’. So we can be baptized only once. But what happens when a Roman Catholic wishes to join the Orthodox Church (or vice versa), or an Anglican wishes to join the Orthodox Church, or a Mormon (where the Mormons have a supplementary book of revelation not accepted by traditional Christians)? In ancient times, Orthodox Christians received non-orthodox believers from other Christian groups either by baptism or by chrismation, or even by confession of faith, the method used depending on the particular group being received. St Basil the Great occupied himself with rules on this.

The Roman Catholic Church treats all Christian baptisms (with some exceptions) as valid baptisms. Indeed, according to the Roman Catholic Church a non-Christian can baptize a non-Christian in a valid baptism if intent is there and water is used. In our own experience, we know of a case where as a prank a non-Christian contemptuous of Christians baptized another non-Christian who wished to become Christian using water from a mud puddle. Voila! Newly baptized Christian.

Now, today the more conservative Orthodox prefer to receive converts from other Christian denominations by Orthodox baptism in accordance with a strict interpretation of the canons and in accordance with the view that the Orthodox Church is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, there being no divine grace in sacraments outside the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Less conservative Orthodox prefer to receive Christian converts to the Orthodox Church by chrismation or even by confession of faith either because the Church supplies what is lacking in the original baptism or because the original baptism is actually valid. The first view supporting chrismation or confession, that the Church supplies what is lacking, while theologically arguable at least has the merit of being consistent with the classical self-identity of the Orthodox Church as the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. The second view supporting chrismation or confession, that the original baptism is valid, indicates that the theologian tends either to the ‘Branch Theory’ or to a Roman Catholic understanding of the Church.

From the discussion above we can now see the background of disputes in the Orthodox Church concerning ecumenism. They have to do with issues of the Orthodox Church’s self-identity. They also have to do with the doctrinal and moral liberalism and relativism found among the largely Protestant ecumenists. In other words, there is an issue both about how the Orthodox Church defines itself and about how the Orthodox Church responds to theologically fashionable currents within the ecumenical movement, most notably homosexuality and related moral issues, although there are also doctrinal issues concerning whether for example one actually believes in the Resurrection—some professed Christians who are ecumenists don’t.

However, it should be understand that issues of doctrinal and moral liberalism arise outside specifically ecumenist settings, so that they are an issue in some Orthodox jurisdictions even beyond the matter of formal ecumenism.

We can also see that connected with these broader issues is the very specific issue of how Jennifer is to be received into the Orthodox Church.

Moreover, because the Orthodox Church emphasizes tradition over reason, where tradition is correctly defined (by Vladimir Lossky) as the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, there is a tendency in the Orthodox Church for heresies or deviations to develop from an overemphasis on the external forms of tradition, most notable in our view being the Old-Calendarist schism in the Greek Church (20th Century) and the Old Believer schism in the Russian Church (17th Century). This would be different from tendencies to over-emphasize human reason, something that characterizes the West. Reactions in the West to the over-emphasis on reason led to the pietist movement in Lutheranism and also to the various Pentecostalist and fundamentalist sects.

So not only are there issues that arise from legitimate questions about how the self-identity of the Orthodox Church is viewed and how issues of doctrinal and moral liberalism or relativism are viewed but there are also issues that arise from an excessive adherence to the external shell of traditional practice in the Orthodox Church.

To clear up a small point in Jennifer’s letter before we go on, Jennifer says that she is considering being baptized again in order to become Orthodox. She does not state whether her first baptism was Orthodox but if so she is already Orthodox—unless she has in the meantime denied Christ or joined another religion—and it is a matter of being taught the beliefs of the Church and getting herself sorted out with the mystery of confession of sins. Of course if Jennifer has denied Christ or joined another religion, then the canons of the Church provide that she be re-chrismated. Denial of Christ is a formal renunciation of Christ; if one has the thought that they might have done this it should be discussed with a priest empowered to hear confessions before any weight is assigned to this possibility. If in fact there has been a formal renunciation of Christ, it is better for the ministering priest to explain why re-chrismation is necessary.

However, if Jennifer was baptized originally with a non-Orthodox baptism, then we are back to the issue of how she is to be received into the Orthodox Church, and here we pick up the thread of her email.

In our view the best thing to do for someone joining the Orthodox Church is to receive a canonical baptism in the Orthodox Church even if they have previously been baptized as a Christian. By ‘canonical baptism’ we mean the full service of baptism, including the service of the catechumen, as found in the priest’s book of prayers. Then the person should concentrate on the inner spiritual transformation that begins with baptism, as lived within a healthy canonical parish. By ‘canonical parish’ we mean a parish whose Bishop is in communion with the various Patriarchs and Hierarchs of the national churches of the Orthodox Church.

It is ultimately the conscious contact with the Holy Spirit received in the heart in Orthodox baptism that forms the Orthodox conscience of the believer and this Orthodox conscience solves all the problems of jurisdiction and belief and hatred that Jennifer refers to. In the particular case of Jennifer’s situation, she might wish to look at the Russian Church Outside of Russia as a possible entry point into Orthodoxy—assuming that the parish is in communion with the Patriarch of Moscow.

Now let us look at particular issues raised by Jennifer’s email.

The first issue is that Jennifer lives in a country where there is only a sprinkling of Orthodox parishes. We don’t know details.

Jennifer remarks on the lack of aggressive missionary work by the Orthodox Church. Speaking humanly, not preaching the Gospel is a weakness of the Orthodox Church. The charge to preach the Gospel ‘to all Creation’ is given by Christ himself. The Orthodox Church is weak on this, and especially on inner preaching—to those who are nominally Orthodox but who really do not believe. However, this preaching whether on the institutional or individual level is quite different from the proselytization that Jennifer refers to (hard core knocking on doors to make converts).

Jennifer writes:

I interpreted this (correct me if I’m wrong) as the Orthodox Church being satisfied with co-existing with other religious movements, acknowledging that other people have other beliefs, and that—even though they may not agree that their beliefs lead to salvation the way the Orthodox Church sees it, they certainly have the capacity to guide people spiritually into living more fulfilled and righteous lives.

Here we enter into the dynamic of Jennifer’s own conversion or not to Orthodoxy. The norm in Orthodoxy is the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, a loosely defined group of authors over the centuries who among themselves define good Orthodox dogma, thus interpreting the Gospel, which ultimately is itself the criterion of sound belief. What Jennifer is going to have to do—perhaps for the rest of her life—is to study how the Fathers of the Church handled this very issue of non-Orthodox and non-Christian believers who may indeed be pious in the context of their own belief system and from at least a human point of view virtuous. On a more practical level it is something she will have to discuss with the parish priest who catechizes her. On a more theological level we would recommend St. Silouan the Athonite by Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) where both in Archimandrite Sophrony’s extended introduction and in St. Silouan’s own writings this issue is touched upon. We think that Jennifer will appreciate St. Silouan’s attitude.

Jennifer continues:

It has come to my attention that quite a severe schism has been going on for quite some time between the more conservative parts of the Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement (as well as that about the calendars), and one of the largest ‘counter-ecumenical’ movements is the largest Orthodox parish in my country. I am confused. Is it not the teaching of the Orthodox Church that love for another should be extended, whether or not we are of the same opinion, and that forgiveness should be given whether asked for or not? I understand why you might not want to admit their teachings to be the way of salvation, but is there a need to proclaim half the world to be heretics and blasphemers?

St Paul the Apostle remarks to the Corinthians concerning schisms among them that to a certain extent he can believe it because that way it can be seen who is authentic. However, he certainly doesn’t encourage schism. And writing to the Corinthians he says that we should make love our aim. In practical terms, Jennifer should first of all only have to do with canonical non-schismatic jurisdictions in communion with the Patriarchs and Hierarchs of the various national Orthodox churches. She should have nothing to do with schismatic or ‘fly-by-night’ self-erected ‘Orthodox’ churches, of which unfortunately there are a number. However, even if a parish is canonical, Jennifer should be ‘cunning as a snake and innocent as a dove’, sizing up the parish using the criterion of the Gospel: ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ If a parish is characterized by hatred and anger, it is not acting under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit and Jennifer should go elsewhere.

Is there not a fundamental difference here between learning about the ways of the other and adopting them yourself? Enough strength in one’s own belief should make it possible to meet others without fear of losing oneself. I was taken aback when seeing some very harsh comments on the subject and, not having found my place in the Church yet, I fear I will discover the whole Church to be like this. Should I make inquiries here on the political opinions of the priests and of the Bishop of the parish I hope to enter, to make sure we see ‘eye-to-eye’? I had rather hoped I could avoid such a political mix into my stumbling attempts at spiritual advancement. (Wow, that sounded bitter!)

…

I believe good advice is good advice wherever it comes from (now we are obviously not talking Gospel, but simple humility, aid and comfort of a purely humanitarian nature). This basic view is, I fear, rather well established in me by now (I am 33) so how can I see and believe in the wisdom of priests who seem so full of anger and are so hell-bent on their way as being the right one that they will not even talk to some fellow priest who has chosen another path? I mean, these guys are fellow Christians, granted maybe not of the same kind. But at least they’re not of some weird cult from New Guinea that wants to shrink your head. One could think they could find SOMETHING to talk about over dinner...

The answer to the preceding should now be clear. While the Orthodox Church bears witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it does so under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Truth and Love, and not under the impulsion of other spirits of anger and hatred.

Jennifer continues:

Problem is: am I too open-minded? Have I lived too long in a world of multiple ways of the mind to be welcome and able to stay on the road I want to follow? Does Orthodoxy imply not only that I choose to believe in the path of Orthodoxy but also that I must reject those others who for their own reasons may have chosen another path? Am I on the wrong path in searching Orthodoxy with this mind-set?

We think that Jennifer is going to have to search for sound teachers to catechize her. She is going to have to hear the Gospel presented in its entirety and either accept or reject it. Some of what she now believes she will have to discard; some she will have to purify; some she will have to retain. This is a matter of a year or more.

… The crux is that I fear I will enter the Orthodox Church retaining the feeling that my view of the world is ‘better’ and that I need to convince these people to change, or at least to give them a new perspective. But I came to get a new perspective myself! In the secular world I have the ‘I-know-what-the-problem-here-is-and-I-am-going-to-fix-it’ mentality, and I am currently struggling to get out of that business. Changing that was (is?) one of the steps down the road to change.

While no one is going to make a serious change to Jennifer’s character at the age of 33 without doing her serious psychological damage of a very nasty kind (cults, brainwashing and all that), still as Jennifer well realizes we join the Orthodox Church to change ourselves, not to change the Church. There is a dynamic here between learning humbly and then later serving God in various ways given our own human capacity and character.

… So now we have arrived at the interesting conclusion that the problem is not that of Orthodox priests arguing but of me believing I know better. Ergo, solution will be to grab the first priest I come across and start listening, without concern for his political background.

Not at all, unless Jennifer is intent on self-destruction. ‘Cunning as a snake; innocent as a dove.’ ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’

Great! See—you can even get good advice from a silent computer screen. Now I don’t even have to bother sending the letter. But I will anyway (tomorrow) for three, no four, reasons:

...

3. In diagnosing myself I may be back to my well-known original sin again. (The reasoning is circular—will this ever end? Does this mean I have to doubt every time I think I understand something; otherwise I’m just full of pride?)

We are not so convinced that this is pride. Moreover, as Jennifer will learn when she begins to practise the Jesus Prayer, we are more than the flow or stream of our intellectual ideation. Part of coming into contact with the Holy Spirit in the heart through the practice of the Jesus Prayer is learning to go beyond our thoughts to our heart (which is not our emotions but our spiritual centre). St Diadochos of Photiki discusses this progression (click on the Diadochos label in the right-hand margin).

4. Most importantly—I am very curious to hear why you refer to yourself in plural.

We’re curious why it’s important.

Sorry about the ranting. I will stop now. Do whatever you want with this (as long as you answer question number 4).

Cheers,

Jennifer

Thanks. It’s been a pleasure. Answer with your thoughts. –Orthodox Monk