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.

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.

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.

A Comment on our Post ‘A Charismatic Question by Email’

We have received a comment on our post ‘A Charismatic Question by Email’. We think that it is worth discussing this comment by ‘Commodus Firmus’ in a blog post. We have edited the comment for clarity.

Hi, the use of the name of Jesus is never in vain and what seems out of place and incompatible today might be a perfect fit tomorrow. If anyone wants to use the Jesus Prayer only good will come of it.

I grew up in Greece. On the one hand, I was steeped in Orthodoxy and the Jesus prayer from a very early age (I discovered the prayer when I was 8-10 and then when I was around 13 I tried it for the first time).

On the other hand, however, the institutionalized Orthodox Church of Greece (as a social structure) was so irrelevant and so unsuccessful in communicating its message that it was (and for many is) just repulsive. For years I was just one more ‘nominal Christian’. The Jesus prayer was the only indication that underneath the rather repulsive visible institutionalized ‘state religion’ there might be hiding a ‘pearl of great price’.

Then I met Protestants—some (nominally) still Greek ‘Orthodox’ but with evangelical tendencies—and also Pentecostals. In sharp contrast to the state church, these people looked as if they practiced what they preached and they taught me to read the Bible too. I was still trying the Jesus prayer every now and then, never ‘breaking’ its secret yet on every occasion I was left with the impression that there is a secret in this short repeated prayer. So I always returned to it. First every 2-3 years, then every 1-2 years, then even more often, until 30+ years after I discovered the Jesus Prayer it became a regular part of my life and returned my heart to the Orthodox Church. I still feel ashamed of the quality of leadership of the Orthodox Church—but then, am I any better? Yet every time some (over?)zealous Orthodox—seemingly out of petty antagonism—speaks ill of other denominations it pains my heart because I learned good things from them. Wasn’t it the Lord who said, ‘from their fruit you will know them’? Well, they are not perfect. It pains my heart too to see some of the doctrinal errors of the non-Orthodox, yet I see the good fruit as well and close my mouth.

The bottom line of all this: If some people want to practice the Jesus prayer, let them practice it—even help them to practice it—be they atheists, Buddhists or Protestants or whatever. The Name of Jesus has a power of its own to work unexpected wonders in the hearts of those praying, no matter who or what they are. Thank God no one has copyrighted the Jesus Prayer and no one has trademarked it! If fact I sometimes think that it works a ‘secret operation’ to bring people back to Orthodoxy. I don’t fear that the Jesus Prayer is something people can exploit commercially but see it more as a cornerstone that can be the foundation for the return [to Orthodoxy? to Jesus?] of those who will put their trust on it or a stumbling block that will crush those who will try to exploit it.

This comment is interesting for its clear expression of a person who although nominally Orthodox is a Protestant in spirit.

Back Beat 4

The easiest thing to do is to respond to specific passages of Alice’s two emails.

Thank you again for your answer. I was very relieved and happy to hear your wise words and I am very grateful for you for answering my questions. If you still have time to help me in my journey I would be most grateful but I understand completely if this subject has taken too much of your time.

The problem is not so much our time, although we often delay because we are preoccupied, but the issue of our not being the appropriate person to answer some of the questions we receive, and the Internet not being the appropriate place to solve intensely personal issues—not to mention that some of the issues raised in this and other emails are actually quite difficult.

I know that one of the reasons that I have thoughts that music is somehow sinful and does not lead to God and maybe even leads people to idolatry, is that I am not yet a member of the Orthodox Church. Because of that I have no one to rely on in regard to questions like this. It would really mean a lot to me if I could find some spiritual father who could help me with my spiritual life. But this is a question of me, not of you I suppose.

Spiritual direction, counselling and fatherhood have to happen face-to-face; they can’t happen—for a variety of reasons, including the lack of confidentiality in email—over the Internet. Admittedly it is hard to find a good Orthodox spiritual father at any time, and especially in countries that have only a minority Orthodox population. However, it is impossible to engage in a serious personal discussion by email: in the very nature of things there is a great deal of filtering that goes on so that it is very hard to get a sense of who exactly the stranger is who has approached you by email. This is true not only of Alice but of all our interlocutors who approach Orthodox Monk. We, Orthodox Monk, really do not feel that we are getting a full image of anyone who sends us an email. Perhaps a great saint with gifts of clairvoyance might be able to handle such a ministry but we cannot. Hence we discourage our blog readers from expecting us to guide them. Alice quite rightly and quite sensibly does not expect that from us but we want to say this clearly for the sake of all of our respected blog readers.

As you probably understand, the Internet is full of all sorts of stuff and sites like this list of the passions by St Peter of Damascus, where ‘flute-playing’ is listed as one of the passions. This does not make me feel comfortable in the least.

As we understand it, in pagan times music was used in pagan rituals which verged on debauchery, apart from the fact that they were devil worship. Flute-playing was part of that. So when we see flute-playing in such a list as this we are really encountering an ancient attitude to pagan ritual. It might be similar today to consider what a pious Orthodox reaction might be to heavy metal with satanic lyrics. However, we doubt that playing a Bach partita on the violin is to be considered in the same light.

The only thing I’ve understood is that in Orthodox Church the Tradition and the Holy Canons are not understood in legal terms but more as a guide to Christian life and ascesis.

It’s a little more complicated. While Roman Catholicism developed in a very legalistic way, especially in the work of Thomas Aquinas, and while Tradition is properly defined in the Orthodox Church as the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, we cannot completely relativize the canons. However, we can certainly look at what they were intended to accomplish when they were formulated and consider whether the same conditions obtain today. We personally think that in cases where there is not a serious moral issue—say, abortion—then a case can be made for flexibility in the application of the canons given different circumstances today. Certainly if there is a canon of Hippolytus that one should not baptize a music teacher (we do not know), surely today one would be flexible if someone approached for baptism who was teaching little kids to play the violin so they could play Bach.

I hope I have understood this correctly. I might also answer to this that I might possibly understand this better as a member of the Church.

It is true that some things we understand better having entered the Church.

As for my questions, if you have time I would like to ask you what the difference is between the sentiments and the passions. You wrote about the sentiments, how we Westerners are used to thinking of Christianity as being only about the sentiments. Are emotions and passions the same thing?

We think that this is important. In the West, since the day of Thomas Aquinas especially, one thinks that there is only the intellect and the emotions. In the Orthodox spiritual tradition there is the intellect and the emotions and the heart as the spiritual centre of the person. In the West, if one is not intellectual he is emotional—in the good or neutral sense. In the Orthodox Church when one is spiritual he is not necessarily either intellectual or emotional. This issue crops up in the practice of the Jesus Prayer, since in the Orthodox Church the Fathers speak of bringing the mind into the heart there to practice the Jesus Prayer. In terms of Western received psychology this makes no sense whatsoever and can only be interpreted as an emotional or sentimental practice of the Jesus Prayer with a mental concentration on the region of the heart. But that is not what is meant. What is meant is that the person enters consciously into the heart as into their spiritual centre, not their emotional centre. Now the person who brings the mind into the heart does not cease to have an intellect and emotions, and these are harnessed to the practice of the Jesus Prayer in the spiritual centre of the person.

The connection between the sentiments, or emotions, and the passions is this. The passions are the emotions directed towards vice, not virtue. The goal of the ascetic is to purify his emotions so that his emotions are directed to the virtues not to the vices. For every emotional drive in a person, there is a virtue and there is a vice. Fallen man has his emotions directed to the vices; the goal after baptism is to work to direct our emotions to the virtues. This is called ‘purifying the passions’.

Now when we say that Western music concentrates on the sentiments or emotions, what we mean is that Western music does not appeal to the spiritual part of the person centred in the heart as described briefly above, but to the emotions. In particular, demonic music works on the emotions to direct them to the vices, whereas healthier music works on the emotions to direct them towards virtue, or at least towards a greater serenity or even an Aristotelian tragic catharsis. Spiritual music would work more on the spiritual part of the person, so as to harmonize with raising the mind to God, either through the services of the Church or through the Jesus Prayer, or through prayer in a more general sense.

I quite often have the feeling that good music can teach us a small bit of truth. It is not the Truth but it can at least maybe lead people closer to Truth.

As Fr Seraphim Rose of Platina wrote, music can warm the soul; as St Barsanuphius of Optina wrote, ‘When you have children, teach them music. But of course real music—angelic music, not dances and songs. Music assists the development of spiritual perception. The soul becomes refined. It begins to understand spiritual music as well.’ I also think that Theophan the Recluse also said things similar to this. Of this, however, I am again not fully sure.

While this should be understood in light of what is said just above, it should be recognized that in its main outlines 19^th Century Russian religious music was actually Western classical romantic music.

Perhaps I am not totally wrong in thinking that this means ‘good music’, which nowadays (maybe not at the time of Fathers?) can also be instrumental music or songs not specifically composed for liturgical use in the Church. The exhortation of St Basil to young men concerning Greek literature comes to mind as it says ‘There is also good music that David, the Sacred Psalmist, used.’ Tradition also reports that Pythagoras, by changing the melodic scale of the flautist that was leading a merry-making, changed the mood of a drunk crowd so that they became ashamed and went back home. (Quotations not exact but in my own words since I don't have the source here at the moment)

This should make sense in light of what is said above. It doesn’t surprise us that changing the melodic scale of the flute would change the mood of the drunken crowd. That is what we would expect.

I’m the most grateful for you for letting me write these words to you. I don't remember whether I told you before but I suffer from panic attacks and from depression and I see a therapist for that condition. I know that one of the reasons behind all these doubts is that condition. That and a promise I once made to God, during one of my first panic attacks, that if this terrible feeling goes away, I will do for God anything He wants me to do. For this I am at the same time both afraid (for not doing what He wants from me) and not afraid (since I trust that He will lead me if I try to find His meaning for my life).

We are not professionally qualified to address this condition.

I just wanted to say that so that I can be honest. I am not crazy and I hope that you will not worry about me; I just hope that maybe someone like me and with questions like me, will find at least some answers while reading your lovely blog.

...

When I wrote to you about suffering from panic attacks and depression, if it somehow is needed or helpful for your answer, I really don’t mind if you mention it. I just meant that perhaps that is not what your blog is all about if I’ve understood rightly. I had the feeling that your blog is more about issues that are of a more universal type than personal problems such as my health.

This is quite true for the reasons given above.

Still, at the same time I have the feeling that somehow it is because of pride that I won’t give up thinking all the time about music and questions about its dangers in regard to my becoming a member of the Orthodox Church and in regard to my wish to get a bit closer to God. I sometimes feel that if even God Himself were to say to me that no one is going to tell me to stop being a musician and a music teacher, I would not believe Him.

This is something that should be discussed face-to-face with the priest.

This is actually the feeling I get when I pray for God to help me [that no one is going to tell me to stop]. But again, I am not sure about the answers I receive in prayer and for that reason I seek outside assistance on the matter. My prayer answer is a feeling I get that somehow my place in the world is in music. For that I seek to find help from the Church, to find trust and not to get lost in my own thoughts and feelings.

Alice quite sensibly does not want to rely on her own discernment, and God will respect her for that, but as we pointed out the Internet is not the appropriate venue; a face-to-face meeting with a priest is the appropriate venue. For that reason we cannot go into as much detail as a priest might.

We hope that all goes well in your life, Alice. May God bless you.