Questions about Orthodox Monasticism

We have just received an interesting email (slightly edited):

I am an undergraduate student taking a class on World Religions. While I am not Greek Orthodox, I have become very interested after watching a “60 Minutes” interview with His All Holiness Bartholomew. I have chosen as a topic for my research paper, aspects of the Greek Orthodox religion. If possible, could you answer the following questions?

(This web site provides excellent information, and I would like to ask a few questions in order to add an interview reference for my paper.)

1. What is the origin of the order of Monks?

2. What is the role of Monks in hierarchy of the Church?

3. Do Monks have a role in the spiritual development of lay persons?

4. Do you see any similarities between the orders of Monks in the Orthodox Church and in the Buddhist religion?

Thank You,

Let us take the questions one by one.

1. What is the origin of the order of Monks?

First of all, the student of religion must understand something of the relations of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Until the schism of 1054 ad, they were one church, in communion with one another. However, although the Roman Church originally spoke Greek, it soon changed to Latin, whereas the Greek Church centred in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) continued to speak Greek. Moreover, the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople were both centred on capitals of the Roman Empire: there were two capitals of the Roman Empire (whence the two-headed eagle, one head looking West and one East). However, although the two churches were in communion, they evolved in somewhat different directions and with a somewhat different mentality. This is evident when one reads St Augustine in parallel with contemporary Greek Fathers of the Church: there is already a clear difference in mentality. Moreover, partly because St Augustine was writing in Latin, although the Roman Church (and the Protestant Reformers) took him very seriously indeed, he was ignored in the Greek East. This is important even in the question in hand because St Augustine founded an order of monks, with a rule that has a completely different character from Greek-based rules. The two churches split in the 11^th Century.

Let us now turn to the actual question. First of all, let us note that there are two basic types of Christian monk: the coenobitical monk, who lives with other monks in an organized monastery, and the eremitical monk, who lives alone. Traditionally, the Greeks trace the origins of the coenobitical Christian monk to the Acts of the Apostles, to the Christian community in Jerusalem. See Acts 4, 32 – 37:

The heart and soul of the crowd of believers was one and no one said that any thing of his possessions was his own but everything was common to them. And the Apostles rendered the witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with great power for great grace was on all of them. For there was no one in want among them; for as many as were owners of fields or houses sold them and brought the prices of those things which had been sold, placing them at the feet of the Apostles. And they gave to each according to the need he had. And Joses, called Barnabas by the Apostles, which translated means ‘Son of Consolation’, a Levite, from a Cypriot family, there being a field he owned, sold that field and brought the money and placed it at the feet of the Apostles.

Now there is no indication that the believers in the original Jerusalem community were obliged to be celibate. Since the Apostle Peter was married, this seems unlikely.

The relevant passages of the Bible concerning celibacy are these: First, Elias (Elijah) the Prophet who was clearly celibate, as it seems his disciple and successor Elisha was. In the description of the Prophet Elias’ life, the Bible refers to the ‘Brotherhoods of the Prophets’, which seem to have been celibate, although the Bible does not say much at all.

In the New Testament, St John the Baptist is clearly celibate, as was Our Lord himself. Our Lord says this about celibacy in Matthew 19, 9 – 12:

I say then to you that whoever dismisses his wife, if not for fornication, and marries another commits adultery and she who is dismissed commits adultery if she marries. His disciples said to him: If this is the basis of legal action for a man with the wife, it is not profitable to marry. He then said to them. Not all can receive this word, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God; let he who is able to receive this word, receive it.

The Church has never accepted any interpretation of this passage that would suggest that self-castration is acceptable; the Church has always understood this passage to be a provision for voluntary celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Note that there is no indication that celibacy can be undertaken for any other reason.

Here is what St Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 – 11:

Concerning, then, those things which you wrote to me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. On account, however, of [the danger of] fornication let each [man] have his own wife, and each [woman] have her own husband. Let the man render to the wife the favour which is owed and likewise the wife to the husband. For the woman does not have authority over her own body but the husband; likewise the man does not have authority over his own body but the wife. Do not deny each other, unless it is by mutual agreement for a time so as to dedicate yourselves to fasting and to prayer and then to come together again, so that Satan not tempt you on account of your incontinence. I say this by way of concession not by way of command. For I wish that all men were as myself. But everyone has his own gift from God, one this way and one that way. I say then to the unmarried and to the widows that it is good for them to remain even as I am but if they do not keep continent then let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. I command those who are married, however, not I but the Lord, that the woman must not separate from her husband. But if she separates, let her remain unmarried or else let her be reconciled to her husband; and let the husband not leave his wife.

As we can see here, it is better not to marry but marriage is not a sin. Moreover, celibacy within marriage is by mutual consent for a time for the sake of fasting and prayer. Of course, the canons of the Church have regulated this with regard to the fixed fasts of the Church. However, more important for an understanding of Christian monasticism, celibacy is better than marriage. Here is what St Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, 25 – 40:

Concerning maidens, I do not have a command of the Lord but I give my opinion as one who has been shown mercy by the Lord to be faithful. I think then that this is good on account of the present necessity, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Have you been given to a wife? Do not seek to loose the bonds. Have you been loosed by a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned. And if the maiden marries, she has not sinned. But such persons [i.e. those who marry] will have affliction in the flesh; I [would] spare you [that]. I say this then, brothers, that the remaining time has been shortened, so that those who have wives should be as not having, and those who are weeping as not weeping, and those who are rejoicing as not rejoicing, and those who are buying as not possessing, and those who make use of this world as not making use, for the form of this world is passing. I want you to be without cares. He who is unmarried takes care for the things of the Lord, how he will please the Lord. But he who marries takes care for the things of the world, how he will please his wife. For the married woman and the maiden have been divided. She who is unmarried takes care for the things of the Lord so that she be holy in body and spirit. She who has been married takes care for the things of the world, how she will please her husband. I say this to you towards your own profit: not so that I put a noose around you but towards seemliness and so that you might constantly wait for the Lord without distraction. If someone thinks he is behaving badly towards his maiden, if he is of surpassing sexual vigour and thus it must happen, let him do what he wants; he does not sin; let them marry. However, if anyone has stood stably in his heart, not having necessity, and has authority over his own will, and has judged this in his heart, to keep himself a virgin, he does well. So that he who marries does well but he who does not marry does better. A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband is alive. If her husband passes away, she is free to marry whom she wants, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is more blessed if she remains thus [i.e. an unmarried widow], and I think that I have the Spirit of God.

We can see that in the New Testament celibacy is clearly foreseen for the sake of the Kingdom of God and for no other reason. Marriage is not a sin but the higher state is celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Moreover the Bible is clear that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is not for everyone but only for those who can sustain it and who want to. It is a free choice for those who are able to live such a life.

Now in terms of the actual historical evolution of monasticism, we have already mentioned the coenobitical model of the original Jerusalem community. There are also passages both in Acts (concerning for example Dorcas who was raised from the dead by Peter) and in the Epistles of Paul which refer to the widows. These appear originally to have been genuine widows who devoted themselves to good works in celibacy with the support of the Church. These widows seem very similar to orders of nuns and most likely played a historical role in the evolution of Christian monasticism. St Paul even regulates concerning them. However, we will leave the reader to research this on his or her own.

In the same era as the New Testament the Jewish theologian or philosopher Philo of Alexandria describes a community of ‘Therapeutae’ near Alexandria in his work ‘On the Contemplative Life’. The work has sometimes been interpreted as describing an early Christian monastic community but there is certainly room for other interpretations.

Next, until the Edict of Milan in 313 ad, which permitted Christianity without establishing it (that happened under Theodosius the Great in 380 ad), there were periodic persecutions of Christians. The norm was for the Christian to flee persecution, not to remain and be subject to martyrdom (since it was not clear that you would withstand the torture, and it was more humble to flee than to stand your ground). A number of these early Christian fugitives remained in the wilderness. A number of these saints’ lives are briefly recorded in the collections of Lives of the Saints. We have examples of such saints already from the middle of the 3^rd Century, if not earlier (there probably is a problem with the sourcing, not with the existence of earlier saints of this type).

Moreover, when St Anthony the Great went to the desert sometime before 300 ad, at that time, as his biographer, St Athanasios the Great of Alexandria, who knew him personally, remarks, there were monks who lived on the outskirts of towns and villages, but St Anthony was the first to go to the desert. Actually, St Anthony wasn’t the first to go to the desert, since there were others who had gone to the desert to escape martyrdom and had remained. But he certainly had a dramatic effect on the nature of Christian monasticism.

By the end of the 4^th Century, Egypt was full of monks, as was Palestine and Syria. Indeed, there were developments in Palestine and Syria parallel to the early growth of monasticism in Egypt and it would be a mistake to think that the source of all Christian monasticism was Egypt, although it did indeed produce the form dominant in the Orthodox Church. There were some differences between Syrian and Egyptian monasticism. A characteristic example of a contemporary Syrian saint is St Symeon the Stylite (fl. 5^th C.), who is well-attested and the ruins of whose pillar have been found and whose fame spread all the way to Rome.

2. What is the role of Monks in hierarchy of the Church?

The monk becomes a member of the ‘choir of those who live alone’ within the Church. He renounces the world, becomes celibate, but as a member of the Church. He is a member of the Church who has opted for a celibate role within the Church. Fairly early the canons (laws) of the Church regulated concerning monks. A monk is forbidden to seek the priesthood. If he is offered the priesthood he may accept (and indeed may be required to accept because of his vow of obedience). But as is clear from the Scriptural passages quoted above, the monk is dedicated to serving the Lord without distraction in repentance and prayer; his is not the vocation of the teacher. Hence, it is considered unseemly and even dangerous for a monk to seek the priesthood, which is really a ministry of teaching in the Church. Moreover, monks were also regulated by the canons of the Church to remain in their hermitages and/or monasteries: they were not to spend their time in the cities making trouble. However, fairly soon, bishops were selected exclusively from the monks. Hence, although the monk could not seek the priesthood, let alone a bishopric, he could be selected for either. Historically, monks have functioned as a kind of ginger group in the Orthodox Church. That is, the monks often supported sound doctrine.

3. Do Monks have a role in the spiritual development of lay persons?

Yes, if they themselves have any spiritual development. The best thing to do here is to quote St John of Sinai, the author of the Ladder of Divine Ascent. We don’t have the text handy, but he says that the angel is the light of (model for) the monk, whereas the monk is the light of (model for) the layperson. This aspect of monasticism developed over the years. In 19^th Century Russia, Dostoevsky himself used to go to Optina monastery where he used to confess to one of the Elders there, St Ambrose. St Ambrose said of Dostoevsky: ‘That is a man who repents.’ The same Elder said of Tolstoy, with whom he spoke for eight hours straight: ‘He has much pride.’ So, yes, this is a very important aspect of Orthodox monasticism. Needless to say, conflicts can arise with Section 2, above, if the monk who is playing a role in the spiritual development of lay persons doesn’t see eye to eye on certain matters with the local bishop. With regard to nuns, spiritually developed nuns do also counsel lay persons, mostly females. The Orthodox Church has always paid attention to the stricture of St Paul that he did not permit women to have authority over men in the Church, so while there are roles that women play in the Church, nuns generally do not offer spiritual direction except to other women.

4. Do you see any similarities between the orders of Monks in the Orthodox Church and in the Buddhist religion?

Yes and no. Obviously, on the most superficial level monks of both religions are ostensibly celibate, or at least unmarried. However, the earliest references to Buddhism in Christian letters we ourselves have seen are first in Clement of Alexandria (2^nd to early 3^rd C.), who makes a passing reference to Buddha in one of his works, and then in the catechisms of St Hesychios of Jerusalem about 370 ad, who states that through a chain of disciples the Buddha was one of the sources of Manes, the founder of Manichaeism. It is interesting that St Hesychios explicitly states that he is taking his information from converts to Christianity from Manichaeism with whom he has spoken personally.

Now, some differences. First of all, Christian monasticism is an optional way of life within the Christian Church that arises out of the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition whereas Buddhism was originally a strictly monastic religion that arose out of Hinduism, in fact Hindu asceticism. The first Buddhist scriptures were the rules of the order of Buddhist monks; lay persons are a sort of later add-on. We cannot overemphasize this fundamental difference between Orthodox and Buddhist monasticism.

Next, in Christian monasticism, a monk gives his vows to God and these are considered irrevocable. The same sense of the irrevocable nature of a vow to God is also to be found in Judaism and Islam. The Roman Catholic Church finds a way to laicize monks who so wish by construing their vows to be to the monastic community and not to God. We once had a conversation with a wayward Jesuit who had left his order without authorization and cast off the habit, and who remarked that his conscience told him that his vows were to God, not to the Jesuit community, and that the only option open to him within Roman Catholic canon law was to go to the Cistercians unless he returned to the Jesuits. Hence, sometimes this approach doesn’t even work for the Roman Catholic Church. In the Orthodox Church, vows of the monk or nun are to God and are irrevocable. Historical exceptions exist but are so exceedingly rare as to prove the canon. However, in Buddhism, monastic vows can be undone. There is a standard procedure for doing this. Evidently, this is how it is that we see in Theravada Buddhism (say, in Thailand) that young boys become monks for a year or two and then return to the world in an expected and accepted fashion. Moreover, we have known persons who were Tibetan Buddhist monks who have given their vows back and returned to the world without any stigma being attached to them by their Tibetan Buddhist gurus.

Next, although a Buddhist monk is celibate, there is a strand of esoteric Buddhism that foresees that the monk will engage in actual tantric yoga with a nun or laywoman. This strand is usually associated with Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism but the strand, which arises out of Hindu tantric yoga associated with the worship of Siva, extends all the way to Japan. Before anyone jumps on us, we are confident of our sources. This is inconceivable in Orthodox monasticism. It would be considered a grave, demonic sin. (It should be noted that in Japan there is the historical anomaly of married Buddhist monks. This arose because of the insistence of the state in a fairly recent period that the monks be married. This can be quite confusing because these monks are usually called Buddhist priests, even though there is no priesthood in Buddhism. We do not know how these married monks live with their wives. Moreover, it should be understood that although Tibetan Buddhist lamas are also often called priests and on occasion even get married, there is really no priesthood in Buddhism, at least not in any sense that someone in the Judeo-Christian tradition, or even the Greek pagan tradition, would understand the priesthood.)

Next, there is a number of degrees in Buddhist monasticism and there is an incredible number of vows in some of the degrees. We seem to recall that in some cases there are over two hundred and fifty vows. We do not know what these vows are all about. Moreover, Buddhist monastic vows are apparently secret, so that it would be difficult to establish what they are all about with any certainty.

In Orthodox monasticism, the full tonsure to the monastic state requires these vows (see our translation of the tonsure to the Great Schema here):

Then the Priest inquires of him, saying:

Question: Why have you come, Brother, falling down before the Holy Altar, and before this holy Brotherhood?

Answer: I desire the life of asceticism, Reverend Father.

Question: Do you desire to be worthy of the Angelic Habit and to be enrolled in the choir of the Monastics?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

The Priest:

Truly, you have chosen a good and blessed work, but only if you complete it. Good things are acquired with toil and achieved with pain.

Question: Do you come to the Lord of your free will?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

Question: Not from any necessity or violence?

Answer: No, Reverend Father.

Question: Do you renounce the world and the things which are in the world, according to the commandment of the Lord?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

Question: Will you remain in the Monastery and in the ascesis up to your last breath?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

Question: Will you preserve unto death obedience to the Superior, and to the whole Brotherhood in Christ?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

Question: Will you endure every affliction and deprivation entailed by the Monastic life for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

Question: Will you preserve yourself in virginity and chastity and piety?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

And the Catechism is immediately begun by the Priest, as follows:

See, child, what agreements you have given to the Master Christ. Angels are here invisibly present recording this your profession, which is going to be required of you in the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am now narrating, therefore, the most perfect life, in which the way of life of the Lord is shown forth, bearing witness what things it is necessary for you to embrace and what things you must avoid. This renunciation, then, for him who has made it is nothing other than a profession of the cross and death.

Know, then, that from this present day you have been crucified and put to death to the world through the most perfect renunciation. For you have renounced parents, brothers, wife, children, forefathers, relatives, associations, friends, habits, the tumults in the world, cares, possessions, goods, empty and vain pleasure and glory; and you are renouncing not only those things which have just been said, but even your own life, according to the voice of the Lord which says: ‘Whoever wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’ If therefore you truly seek to follow him, and if without lies you ardently desire to be called his disciple, from the present moment prepare yourself not towards ease, not towards freedom from care, not towards sensual pleasures, not towards anything else of those pleasures and enjoyments which are on the earth, but towards spiritual struggles, towards temperance of the flesh, towards purification of the soul, towards mean poverty, towards the good grief, towards all the sorrowful and painful things of that life according to God which brings joy. For you have to hunger and to thirst and to go naked and to be reviled and ridiculed, to be reproached and persecuted and to be tempted in many sorrowful things, in which things the life according to God is characterized. And when you suffer all of these things, ‘Rejoice,’ it is said, ‘for great is your wage in the Heavens.’

Rejoice therefore with joy and exult with exultation, for today the Lord God has selected you and set you apart from life in the world, and has set you, as before his face, in the post of the Monastic order, in the service of the angelic life, in the height of the life which imitates Heaven, to worship him angelically, to serve him wholly and completely, to seek those things which are above. ‘For our way of life,’ according to the Apostle, ‘is in the Heavens.’

Oh the new call! Oh the gift of the Mystery! You are receiving a second Baptism today, Brother, in the wealth of the gifts of God who loves mankind, and you shall be cleansed of your sins, and you shall become a son of Light, and Christ himself our God rejoices together with his holy Angels over your repentance, slaughtering for you the fattened calf. Walk worthily therefore of your call; rid yourself of the attachment to vain things; hate the desire that draws you towards those things which are below; turn your own ardent desire towards Heavenly things; by no means whatsoever turn back, so that you not become a pillar of salt like the wife of Lot or like a dog returning to its own vomit, and the word of the Lord be fulfilled in you: ‘No one putting his hand to the plough and having turned towards the rear is fit for the Kingdom of the Heavens.’ For the danger for you is not little, having now professed that you will guard all the aforesaid things, afterwards to make little of the profession or even to run back to the previous way of life, or to separate yourself from the Father and the Brothers who are engaged with you in ascesis, or, remaining, to live your days contemptuously. For you will have weightier responsibilities than previously before the unerring tribunal of Christ, as much as you now enjoy more grace. And it would be better for you, as the saying goes, not to vow than to vow and not to render your vows. And, again, do not at all think that in the previous time of your sojourn in this place you have adequately struggled against the invisible powers of the Enemy, but know rather that from now there will succeed to you greater struggles in the battle against him, but that he will in no way prevail against you if he finds you fenced about by a strong faith and love for him who is guiding you and by sincerity in your obedience and humility.

For this reason, put away from yourself refusal to listen, contradiction, pride, strife, jealousy, envy, anger, clamour, blasphemy, secret eating, boldness of manner, special friendship, talkativeness, wrangling, grumbling, whispering, personal acquisition of any miserable thing, and all the other sorts of vice through which the wrath of God comes on those who practice them and the Destroyer of souls begins to take root in those who practise them. Rather, then, instead of those things, acquire these things which are fitting to Saints: friendship, stillness, leniency, piety, meditation on the divine words, reading, keeping of the heart from filthy thoughts, labour according to strength, temperance, patient endurance up to death, and perfect confession of those things which are in your heart to the Father to whom you previously gave your vows, as the divine testaments relate: ‘They were baptized,’ it says, ‘confessing their sins.’

Question: Do you thus profess all these things in the hope of the strength of God and do you agree to persevere in these promises until the end of life, by the grace of Christ?

Answer: Yes, God helping me, Reverend Father.

One can see that there is not really a vow of poverty for monks in the Orthodox Church, but a vow of endurance in the face of the difficulties and afflictions entailed by the monastic life. However, the catechism, which is sealed by a separate vow of acceptance, does refer to monastic poverty.

Note also that the monk is crucified to the world. This is not something that a Buddhist monk would conceptualize, since Buddhism has different theological bases than Christianity.

Note also that, in a chain going all the way back to the New and Old Testaments, the goal of the monk is ascesis. As St Paul said, the celibate is he or she who is dedicated to pleasing the Lord. This ‘pleasing the Lord’ is understood in monasticism as a process of asceticism to overcome the passions so as to become more Christ-like.

There are really these degrees of monasticism in the Orthodox Church:

Novice (No formal, standardized service. The novice may wear lay clothes, a special uniform or some elements of the monastic habit, although certainly not the veil or the schema—in the West, the schema is called the scapular. This is a period of testing to see whether the person can live as a monk or nun. It can normally be terminated by either side for any reason. It is usually regulated by the Church.)

Rasophore (This is a set of prayers over the beginning monk with a tonsure but without formal vows. See here for the complete service. The habit will ordinarily include the veil but does not include the schema or scapular. While historically the rasophore has been treated as a monk, the Church of Greece takes the position that since there are no vows, it is really a novitiate.)

Small Schema (This is a moderate version of the Great Schema which lacks the vow of renunciation of the world that the Great Schema has, but has all the other vows. It also has a more moderate catechism and milder prayers over the monk. It is based on the service of tonsure to the Great Schema and has exactly the same structure. The readings from the Apostle and the Gospel are different. The actual schema or scapular is smaller than the schema or scapular of the Great Schema and among the Russians is worn inside the habit where it is not ordinarily visible. A priest, who would also be a monk of at the least the Small Schema, ordinarily performs this service. This service is binding for life. We have not translated this service.)

Great Schema (See here. Among the Greeks the actual schema or scapular covers the front of the body from the neck to the knees but among the Russians includes a hood and falls much lower, to the floor. In each case, the schema or scapular is embroidered with a very large cross and a number of letters which are the initial letters of the words in a number of sentences, the more so in the Russian case. The schema or scapular is not always worn. Among the Greeks a priest, who would also be a monk of the Great Schema, ordinarily performs this service, but among the Russians a bishop ordinarily performs it. This service is binding for life.)

The monk or nun may advance from any degree to any higher degree depending on the wishes of his or her spiritual guide (for example, the Abbot). There are differences in time and place and jurisdiction concerning which degrees are conferred when, and even whether a particular degree is conferred at all.

Finally, it should be noted that the services of tonsure in the Orthodox Church are the same everywhere, and the same for men and women: only the gender is changed where appropriate. There has been a historical evolution of the services but the current monastic services are standard throughout the Church.

Saturday Before Thomas

After those things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judah, and he remained there with them and baptized. Now John was baptizing in Ainon close to Salim, for there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. For John had not yet been put into prison. Now there occurred a discussion concerning purification between some of John’s disciples and a Judean. And they came to John and said to him: ‘Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, he to whom you have borne witness, see, he is baptizing and all come to him.’ John answered and said: ‘A man cannot receive anything unless it has been given to him from Heaven. You yourselves bear witness to me that I said that I am not the Christ but that I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the Bridegroom. The friend, then, of the Bridegroom, he who stands and hears him, rejoices with joy on account of the voice of the Bridegroom. That joy of mine has been fulfilled, then. He must increase but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all men. He who is from the earth is from the earth and speaks from the earth. He who comes from above is above all men. And what he saw and heard, to that he bears witness and no one receives his witness. He who receives his witness has put his seal to this, that God is true.’

(John 3, 22–33)

We would like to take this Gospel for the Liturgy of Saturday of Bright Week as our starting point to share a few reflections for the Easter season. First of all, we would like to remark on the Holy Spirit. In the life of the Orthodox layman, it is the Holy Spirit who ‘gives’ from Heaven the charism of ministry to the body of the Church. It is not something we arrogate to ourselves. We see that St John the Baptist—than whom there is no one greater born of woman; he who, if you are willing to receive it, is Elias who is to come again—is careful not to arrogate to himself the title of Messiah or Christ. By divine calling he is the ‘friend of the Bridegroom’ but in his own eyes nothing more. He rejoices to hear the voice of Christ and is content with this joy: he himself must decrease while the Christ must increase. Similarly, properly speaking, the priesthood is not a profession the way ‘doctor’ or ‘lawyer’ or ‘engineer’ is a profession that by ourselves we can choose to adopt; the priesthood is a calling given from God to the layman to minister to his body, the Church. This calling is given from the Holy Spirit, as St Paul remarks in one of his epistles when he discusses the charisms and the charismatic ministries. And just as St John did not arrogate to himself more than God gave him, it behoves him who is called to a ministry to be careful not to arrogate to himself more than he has been given. Moreover, just as the Messiahship of Jesus Christ was validated by St John the Baptist, who saw the Spirit descending and remaining on him, so a calling to ministry to the body is validated by the Bishops of the Church—after all there are no ‘charismatic priests’ in the Orthodox Church; you have to be ordained by a Bishop, who has to be willing on his own judgement to ordain you.

The next point we would like to make concerns the interest of the followers of ISKCON (the International Society for Krishna Consciousness) in Mount Athos and the Jesus Prayer. We made a post on the matter here. We then received a number of comments which we haven’t posted. The authors took us to task for not taking Arnold seriously. Arnold was the person who wrote to us asking about a supposed tradition on Mount Athos that would have the name of God non-different from himself—hence, compatible with ‘Hare Krishna’ and hence making Mount Athos a place where Arnold would be well received and feel at home with his practice of ‘Hare Krishna’. Here is what one ‘John Moschus’ had to say:

Dear Orthodox Monk,

Your dismissal of the interesting phrase used by the seeker Arnold, namely, “the name of God non-different from himself” as nothing but Hinduism is a little too pat. I think Arnold’s query deserves a little more reflection or intellectual effort than merely a quick googling of the phrase, associating it with Hare Krishna or some other form of Hinduism, and then dismissing it as not Orthodox. That’s actually not quite fair. For in fact, the idea of the name of God being not different from God himself is not unknown in the Orthodox tradition. In Orthodoxy it is known by the name of “onomatodoxy”, and as a doctrinal movement surfaced most recently in the Russian Orthodox Church in the early 20th century, where it was known as “Imiaslavie”. With the publication of a book in 1907, called “In the Caucasus Mountains” by a much revered Russian schemamonk and hermit, Ilarion, where he spoke of his own experiences with the Jesus Prayer, and his conviction that the name of Jesus was not different from God Himself and could work miracles, the Imiaslavie movement became very popular with Russian monks on Mount Athos. A great controversy ensued with both proponents, such as the great saint, John of Kronstadt, and opponents, such as Archbishop Anthony Krapovitsky, in hot disagreement. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church eventually declared Imiaslavie a heresy not unlike pantheism. Unfortunately, a full discussion of whether the name of Jesus is non different from God itself or whether it is really a form of pantheism (invoking the dreaded term “pantheism” is an easy refuge for anyone unwilling or afraid to look closely at the implications of any doctrine that draws close to “non-dualism”) was cut short by the October Revolution in Russia, but not before the pre-Marxist government sent a gunboat and two transport ships with troops to remove the offending monks by force. The great Pavel Florensky, Orthodox priest and mathematical genius, was a proponent of Imiaslavie. Florensky insisted that some mathematical functions, such as transfinite numbers, can be understood properly only in the context of the Imiaslavie philosophy, in which the name of God is not different from God himself. I can’t claim to understand this insight. Nevertheless, my point is only to say that to dismiss as nothing but Hinduism the idea that the name of God is not different from God is not quite fair, and that there may be much more that can—and should--be said about it in an Orthodox Christian context, especially as the concept has drawn a seeker to look more closely at Orthodoxy.

Sincerely,

J. Moschus

We should also point out that someone linked to our post on the ISKCON website with a tongue-in-cheek title something like ‘Looks like Arnold won’t get to be a monk on Mount Athos!’

We have been reluctant to get into the issue of Imiaslavie because we think that it is a red herring. We were given links in other comments to articles in Wikipedia on the Imiaslavie movement. Of course Wikipedia has the status of ‘Father of the Church’ if not ‘Father of the whole universe of human discourse’, but let us leave that aside for the moment. We went through all of this stuff, as much as we could stomach.

First of all, Mr Moschus, it seems to us that you are being disingenuous. You are, it seems to us, taking St John Kronstadt out of context. Remember this is the Saint who was treated as an incarnation of God by some Russian sectarians and who suffered great anguish over that (see above about ministries in the church and not arrogating more to yourself than is given). We saw what seemed to us to be the quotation in context that you were basing yourself on, and there is a gross distortion of the meaning if you think that St John of Kronstadt was preaching that the name of God is non-different from himself.

Next, the adjudication of the orthodoxy or not of Imiaslavie by the Russian Synod may or may not have been interrupted by the Revolution of 1917. In Orthodoxy, however, that is not necessarily an important issue. If you’re wrong in Orthodoxy, you’re wrong. Orthodoxy is not a legalistic religion that needs a formal legalistic determination of error to discard a wrong belief. If you don’t believe that, go to Mount Athos and inquire of the Abbots there, or anyone else there for that matter, about Imiaslavie. According to our own information there are no practitioners today of Imiaslavie on Mount Athos, or if there are they are under deep cover.

If someone is interested in a historical treatment of Imiaslavie, with we believe some reference to Ilarion (if it’s the same Ilarion), he might look at Nicholas Fennel’s The Russians on Athos.

Next, with regard to Pavel Florensky and his transfinite numbers only being understood in the context of Imiaslavie. This is silly. The mathematical layman finds it hard to understand that there is a variety of ‘infinities’ in mathematics, not all of which are equivalent (commensurable). For example there are an infinite number of integers and an infinite number of real numbers. But there are more real numbers than integers: when you put the integers and the real numbers into a correspondence, there are always real numbers left over. That’s just the way mathematics is. It’s the same way, only more so, with transfinite numbers. It’s like saying that a square has two dimensions and a cube has three—that there are more dimensions in a cube than in a square. It has nothing to do with Imiaslavie or the nature of God but with the nature of mathematics. In this regard it should be pointed out that Florensky was influenced by the theories of Bulgakov concerning ‘Sophia’, which have never been received by the Church. This is not stuff you learn from the Fathers of the Church. Mr. Moschus, if transfinite numbers can only be understood in the context of Imiaslavie, then in what context can 4-dimensional Minkowski Space-Time (the mathematical formalism of the Special and General Theories of Relativity) be understood, not to mention infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space, the formalism used in Quantum Mechanics?

Let us look at the real issue. The real issue is the nature of God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the Burning Bush, in the Septuagint Translation used in the Church, when Moses asks, ‘Who shall I say has sent me?’ God replies, ‘say that “I am that which I am” has sent you [our free translation from memory]’. The Judeo-Christian (and even Islamic) tradition has always considered God to be transcendent to his creation: he is not the same in essence or substance as his creation.

In the 14^th Century, the presence of God in his creation and the problem of the mystical knowledge of God was analyzed in the context of a defence of the Jesus Prayer by St Gregory Palamas, an Athonite monk and saint. St Gregory took that presence of God in creation as having to do with the presence of the ‘uncreated energies or actions’ of God in his creation. But the ‘uncreated energies’ of God were never considered by St Gregory Palamas to be the substance or essence of God, but the activities of the uncreated essence of God. In other words, in the Orthodox Church, grace is considered to be uncreated. However, grace is considered to suffuse or permeate or transfigure that which is graced, not to be of the same substance as that which is graced. Similarly the mystical knowledge of God that the Hesychast experiences is attributed by St Gregory not to knowledge of the essence of God—in Orthodoxy that is not possible either in this life or the next life—but to the presence of the uncreated energies of God in the created spirit or nous of man, and in the case of saints, even in the body.

This is the significance of the statement in the Gospel reading that he who is from above is above all men[1]. What the Church has always understood by this is that the Word of God—he who is in the presence of the Father, he through whom all things were made, he who is God—came down from Heaven and was incarnated by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. Jesus is the Word of God become man. The Orthodox Church has always held that the Person of Jesus Christ is the Word of God and that the Word of God when it became man took on a complete human nature, so that Jesus Christ is one person (the Word of God) in two natures—a human and a divine nature, the one completely human and the other completely divine. As St John Damscene points out in the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, the Son or Word is equal to the Father except for the relationship of being begotten from the Father and the Spirit is equal to the Father except for the relationship of proceeding from the Father.

These statements presuppose that ‘I am that I am’ who spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush is different from his creation. As St Maximos the Confessor remarks in the Ambigua, we cannot even predicate ‘existence’ of God, because God is beyond all creation and ‘existence’ is a predicate that properly belongs only to what is created, not to the Creator. Hence, according to St Maximos, God is beyond existence. This is a radical transcendence. This is completely contrary to the notion that the name of God is non-different from himself. Moreover, so that what is implied in this latter statement can be understood, on the ISKCON site, there is reference to a physical place, in India we believe, where the place itself—the stones, the trees, the grass, the whatever—is considered to be non-different from Krishna. Hence in worshipping or glorifying (not just venerating) the stones, the trees, the grass, the whatever in that place, one is worshipping or glorifying Krishna; one is worshipping or glorifying God—and, Mr Moschus suggests, the same God who spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush. But, Mr. Moschus, no one in the history of Judaism or Christianity has ever suggested that the Burning Bush is non-different from God himself. The contrary.

We can now understand the Gospel passage a little better. The transcendent God has sent St John the Baptist to bear witness to the Messiah. The Jew of the time took this to be a man who would restore the Kingdom to Israel, as is clear just before the Ascension in the Acts of the Apostles. St John bears witness. He must now decrease, having heard the voice of the Bridegroom, of the Messiah, of the Christ, while the Messiah must increase. And St John goes on that he himself is from the earth and speaks from the earth whereas the Christ, Jesus to whom he has born witness, is from above. This being ‘from above’ the Church understands to refer to the fact that Jesus is the Word of God of the same substance with the Father, the Word of God who has descended from heaven to save us, his lost sheep, who are from the earth—the creatures of God. The transcendent God in his infinite mercy has taken the form of a slave—of a created being—in order to save that created being, man. This is God’s love. May his grace be upon us.

Χριστός ανέστη!

---

[1] or, perhaps, ‘all things’; the text is ambiguous on the referent

A Note on the Jesus Prayer

Let us suppose that we pray the Jesus Prayer and let us suppose that we have joined our mind to our intention in such a way that when we pray ‘a sinner’, we indeed confess to the Lord that we are sinners. Then we might experience an increase of love.

This is a matter of the opening of our heart in repentance. As we confess that we are sinners we divest ourselves of what people nowadays call ‘ego’—what would traditionally be called our pride. We are humbling ourselves in front of God. But having broken down the ‘middle wall’ of enmity, we then find that we have an increase of love—genuine Christian love—for our neighbour. Let us recall that the criterion of our salvation will be the mercy we have shown to our neighbour. Let us also recall that St Paul says in II Corinthians that we should make love our aim.

This takes much work however—not in the sense that we must make an effort of two hours, say, of intense prayer so as to attain to this increase of love, but in the sense that this is something that comes after many years of hard work. And in Christianity, hard work is suffering. If truth be told, this is precisely what asceticism is all about: hard work, or suffering, so as to increase our love, our humility, our ability to confess that we, too, are sinners.

Sunday of the Abstention from Meat

The gospel reading for today:

Therefore, when the Son of Man comes in his glory and all his holy angels with him, then he will sit upon his throne of glory. And all the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from each other just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will set the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I hungered and you gave me to eat; I thirsted and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you gathered me; naked and you clothed me; I was ill and you covered me; in prison and you came to me.’ Then the just will answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and we fed you, or thirsting and we gave you to drink? When did we see you a stranger and we gathered you, or naked and we clothed you? When did we see you ill or in prison and we came to you? And, answering, the King will say to them: ‘Amen, I say to you, inasmuch as you [pl.] did so to one of these brothers of mine, the least, you did so to me.’ Then he will also say to those on the left: ‘Go from me you cursed ones to the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink; I was a stranger and you did not gather me; naked and you did not clothe me; ill and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or naked or ill or in prison and we did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them saying: ‘Amen, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do so to one of these least, neither did you do so to me.’ And they will go into eternal Hell, but the just into eternal life.

(Matthew 25, 31 – 46)

This gospel reading has some of the deepest thoughts of the whole Gospel. For the Gospel is not merely a matter of words but of spiritual meanings conveyed into our hearts. The Gospel renders spiritually present to us that of which it speaks. Here it speaks of the Last Judgement, rendering it present to us (as in a glass darkly). The reading begins with the Second Coming. Christ will come in his glory with his holy angels and will sit upon his throne of glory. No longer is it a matter of the Suffering Servant who is crucified, of the Suffering Servant who is not comely to look upon, but of the King of Kings coming in glory with his holy angels. And his glory is the effulgence of his divinity. We are confronted in this gospel passage with that reality, the reality of the divinity of Christ as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

Then a scene is portrayed of cosmic proportions: all the nations will be gathered before the King sitting on his throne of glory. These are all the souls who have ever lived and died. This is the resurrection of the dead. We will be present then.

Then the King will separate the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left. We will be there.

Notice that those even on the left will acknowledge the Lordship of Christ. It is a truism that the light of the Divinity, apart from the fact that it can present itself either as the Dove or as a consuming fire according to the intention of God, presents itself differently to those who are of Christ and those who are not. Those who are of Christ rejoice to see Christ’s face; those who are not, tremble—but they know who he is.

Then the King of Kings will call those on his right to enter his Kingdom.

What criterion does the King of Kings provide for placing someone on his right and someone on his left? Mercy. Those who show mercy to their neighbour will be saved; those who do not will be damned.

There are a number of things that Christ does not say here. He does not say to the saved, ‘You said many prayers; you fasted; and so on.’ He says, ‘You showed mercy to my brethren, the least of them, and therefore you showed mercy to me.’ As the Lord said to the teacher of the Law in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, ‘Go and do likewise.’ Or as the Beatitudes say, ‘Blessed are those who show mercy, for they shall be shown mercy.’

The primary goal of Lent is repentance, and our primary goal is love so that we are able to show mercy. This is important to understand both for the Orthodox monastic and for the Orthodox layman. Our ascetical practices, including our Lenten ascetical practices, must be tools to help us to repent; they must lead us to love both for God and for our fellow man as we keep the Commandments.

It is in this general context that one should look at the meaning of the Jesus Prayer: ‘Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

A good Lent to all!

–Orthodox Monk

‘The Name of God as Nondifferent From Himself’

We recently received the following email:

Dear Monks,

I am interested in Mount Athos and monastic life, since I heard you accept the name of god as nondifferent from himself. And also accept that chanting his name is the means to spiritual development.

Can people who are not orthodox become monks and live in Mount Athos? I myself follow the 4 regulative principles: No illicit sex, meat eating, intoxication or gambling.

Yours,

Arnold

We were struck by the phrase ‘nondifferent from himself’ since it sounded like a technical term in oriental religion. So we googled it. We saw that the phrase is associated with a branch of Hinduism that includes but does not seem to be limited to ‘Hare Krishna’.

From our vantage point here in the Arctic, here’s what we can say to Arnold:

According to law of the State of Greece, which exercises sovereignty over the peninsula of Mt Athos as an integral part of the Greek State, only members of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch can take up permanent residence on Mt Athos. We imagine that Arnold would be able to visit Mt Athos for a few days but not to remain there.

Also, although there are similarities between the Jesus Prayer and ‘Hare Krishna’—both involve the repetition of a fixed phrase—the Orthodox Church definitely does not accept that the name of Jesus is ‘nondifferent from himself’. This is a Hindu position having to do with Hinduism in one of its manifestations, and not with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. For more information Arnold could look at our recent posts which contain the text and our commentary on the Gnostic Chapters of Diadochos of Photiki. In that work Diadochos discusses the practice of the Jesus Prayer in the Orthodox Church. He emphasizes the connection of the Jesus Prayer to Orthodox Baptism. This is a very ancient work in the Orthodox Church, from 450 AD. We would also suggest that Arnold read our recent Commentary on the Our Father, which at times discusses the relation between prayer and God.

If Arnold has more interest in the Orthodox understanding of these matters he should address himself to the nearest Orthodox Bishop or priest.

The Tax Collector and the Pharisee – Love and Authoritarianism 6

Let us see if we can give a definitive analysis of the American Christian Right Wing and move on. It seems to us that the basic spiritual problem behind all the very odd manifestations of Christianity in the American Christian Right Wing is self-righteousness.

The people on the American Christian Right Wing believe that they can interpret the truth by themselves. This belief that they can interpret the truth by themselves leads to self-righteousness.

This self-righteousness leads these people to raise themselves up higher than the Church. From the Orthodox point of view, people with the views of the American Christian Right Wing are not members of the Body of Christ. They lack integration into the Church. They are not properly joined to the Lord. Their lack of integration into the Church reinforces the disturbances in these peoples’ understanding of the truth that arise from their self-righteous reliance on their own reasoning.

The belief of these persons that they can interpret the truth by themselves leads, as we said, to self-righteousness. From this self-righteousness flows their ability both to mix political positions with the Gospel, as if those political positions were part of the Gospel, and to distort the meaning of the Gospel in order to bring it into line with these persons’ political positions and taste for violence. The lack of a proper integration into the Church leads these people to disregard the wisdom of the Church about what the Gospel means as they put forward their own views or the views of a sectarian author.

These peoples’ lack of integration into the Church also leads to disturbances in their spiritual relationship to Jesus Christ, even and especially despite a born-again turning to Jesus. (However, we understand that an actual spiritual ‘born again’ experience among these people is rather rarer than one might believe.) This is especially true when these people are also involved in Pentecostalism, especially of the ‘Third Wave’ or ‘Latter Rain’ variety. Lacking spiritual integration into the Church these people lack the corporate discernment of spirits of the Orthodox Church that would to protect them from spiritual delusion.

The lack of a proper integration into the Church, and hence the lack of a proper relationship to Christ and the lack of a proper corporate discernment of spirits, causes these people to be susceptible to spiritual temptations connected to pride. There are a variety of temptations that one can succumb to that are related to pride. One is self-righteousness. Another is the acceptance of false doctrine. Another is fanaticism. (One can easily see that the spiritual temptations of pride that arise from the lack of a proper integration into the Church, and the consequences of these peoples’ self-righteous reliance on themselves in the interpretation of the Gospel, mutually reinforce each other.) Once the demon of pride has found its home in the soul, it brings into the soul the demon of anger. From there it is easy for the person to pass on to vindictiveness and hatred and violence. And when these people get involved in Pentecostalism without the spiritual discernment of the Church, they are exposed to spiritual delusion and deception on a grand scale.

It might be useful to repeat here the Parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee:

Two men went up to the Temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. Having stood towards himself, the Pharisee prayed these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of Mankind, swindlers, unjust men, adulterers—or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of 10% on everything that I own.’ And having stood far off, the tax collector did not even want to lift his eyes to Heaven but beat his breast saying: ‘God, have mercy on me a sinner.’ I say to you, the latter went down justified to his house rather than the former. For everyone who raises himself up will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be raised up. (Luke 10 – 15.)

Note that the Gospel states that the Pharisee ‘stood towards himself’. This phrase is clear in the Greek but hard to render in English. Although the Pharisee was a least superficially and externally devout, he did not turn to God in prayer; he turned towards—depended on—himself.

Let us add to the Pharisee’s boast: ‘I am not like the rest of Mankind, committers of abortion, homosexuals, believers in Islam, drug users and spongers off the Government dole. I pay my own way, collect guns to protect the American Way of Life and help organize my local Tea Party Movement.’ Perhaps the point we are trying to make is now clear.

The Lord said that the leaven of the Pharisee was hypocrisy.

Let us who are Orthodox Christians say with the tax collector: ‘Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner.’

May all have a blessed Lent!

–Orthodox Monk

Becoming an Orthodox Nun

Some time ago we received the following message that we have only now been able to turn our attention to:

Dear beloved Orthodox Monk:

As always I am praying for you every day. I am just a simple woman, so I have a simple question. Is there an age limit for people who are thinking of monasticism?

I am sure many people in the world today are attracted to it, simply because the world is, well...more evil than ever. I understand that it is a calling, and not just a "whim". I understand that God either calls us to life in family or life in monasticism. But I would just like to know about this - and also, although I love your commentaries, (thank you so much for the explanation of the Lords Prayer!! Glory to God for that!) I would love to someday see a monk or nun write something like "A Day In the life of ..." Ivan Ivanovitch is interesting, but not as interesting to me as our wonderful Orthodox nuns and monks.

God bless you!

Blackincense

PS: Please forgive my spelling. I am embarrassed because you are very educated. I have severe dyslexia and I struggle. Please forgive me.

Let us first take the question of whether there is an age limit for people thinking of monasticism. The answer is no, but there are factors which both the postulant and the monastery have to take into account.

First of all, let us look at the issue of a lower age limit. Let us look at the situation in a jurisdiction such as the United States. In the United States, the Orthodox Church is a minority church and cultural norms from the countries of origin of various Orthodox jurisdictions cannot be applied across the board in the United States without modification. There is a historical tradition of early vocations in Orthodox countries which would not be proper in the United States largely for legal, but also for social, reasons. In other words, it wouldn’t make sense for a postulant to be received into a monastery who was not legally an adult. It would cause too much trouble legally and socially—too much scandal. That is not to say that a person interested in monasticism who was still a minor could not visit a monastery with the permission of his or her parents.

In general, moreover, nowadays young men and women from urban settings do not have the emotional and spiritual maturity—despite being old beyond their years because of what they see on television—to become monks or nuns until they are nearing their thirties. They are simply incapable before that of living a monastic vocation. Of course there are exceptions.

Moreover, our own view is that before the person enters the monastery he or she should be as well-educated as is suitable given his or her abilities. This is necessary in part for psychological reasons, in part for social reasons. The psychological reasons are that a person who is undereducated is going to get fed up with his way of life in the monastery. He or she is going to get fed up with his or her underutilization of his or her ability—for example, assuming that he or she is able, at not being able to read Scripture in the original language, at not being able to read the Fathers of the Church, at not being able to understand the Services in the original language, at not understanding deeply the dogmas of the Church.

The social reasons are that everyone, even in the monastery, has a reference group (their ‘cohort’). If the members of a person’s cohort are well-educated, while it might seem romantically wonderful that the vocation has renounced all of that to lead a simple life in the monastery worshipping the one true Trinitarian God, still, there will be a temptation for the monk or nun when the initial enthusiasm wears off and the monk or nun sees visiting members of his or her cohort functioning at a much higher intellectual level than he or she. This might lead the monk or nun to try to compensate in various non-monastic ways for the disparity in educational level with members of his or her cohort, to the detriment of his or her vocation and to the detriment of the peace and good order of the monastic brotherhood.

While we have emphasized intellectual skills, this is true even of musical or artistic skill.

In all of these cases, however, there will be a delay in the entry of the vocation into the monastery because of the time spent in studies.

We are also of the view that there is a danger if the vocation has not lived an adult role in society before entering the monastery. This is hard to explain but what we have in mind is the danger of a vocation that is trying to escape an adult role in society, and the responsibility that it entails, by entering the monastery. It would be better for the person to have an adult role in society for a period of time—for example by holding gainful employment in his or her field of training—so that there would occur the psychological maturation necessary for the vocation not to remain in a dependent, child-like state in the monastery. Ultimately, you have to take responsibility, even in the monastery. While the monk or nun is committed to obedience, it is better to be obedient in a condition of psychological adulthood.

Let us turn to the more substantive issue being raised by ‘Blackincense’. Is there an upper age limit to the monastic vocation? No.

However, the younger a person is (despite what we have just said about legal adulthood and emotional and spiritual maturity) the more able that person is able to adapt to the demands of the monastic vocation.

With very late vocations, there is a danger that the vocation will not really grasp what monasticism is all about—the combat against the passions so as to attain to the love of Christ, both given by Christ to the monk or nun, and given by the monk or nun to Christ and to others.

This being said, one of the most remarkable saints in the ‘Sayings of the Desert Fathers’ was an old man named Paul the Simple who went off to the desert to become a disciple of St Anthony when his wife cuckolded him. St Anthony refused him largely because of his age but Paul simply didn’t take no for an answer. St John of Sinai, the great theoretician of the monastic state, remarks that no one has ever made so much progress so quickly as Paul the Simple—exactly because of his simplicity.

As we age, there are greater difficulties in adapting to the monastery but we also have a clearer idea of who we are, and presumably our experience of life has given us the requisite psychological and spiritual maturity.

Now the next thing that is implicit in what ‘Blackincense’ is saying is whether there is an issue with her dyslexia. In general, cognitive difficulties that do not prevent one from leading a relatively normal life in the world do not prevent one from becoming a monk or nun. We ourselves, although we are by no means an expert, would tend to include dyslexia in this.

The problem arises when there are emotional or other disorders which prevent one from relating to other people normally or else are so debilitating as to prevent a normal life inside or outside the monastery.

We once saw a women’s monastery where the Abbess seemed to be collecting emotionally disturbed vocations. She was also a bit fanatical. This seemed to us to be a dead-end road. Eventually normal vocations will not be able to function in the fundamentally disturbed emotional environment of the monastery and they will leave either before or after their tonsure. Or they will themselves become disturbed as their own disturbed tendencies become exaggerated and reinforced within the disturbed society of the monastery.

In general terms, the only possible case in which a dysfunctional person can be successfully integrated into a monastery is if the Abbot or Abbess has the discernment and strength to handle the person spiritually, and if the monastery is otherwise large and healthy enough that the presence of the dysfunctional person does not distort the social fabric of the monastery so much as to make it a disturbed social system. Of course, dyslexia is not such a serious problem as this.

Blessed are the Merciful – Love and Authoritarianism 5

We have been puzzling over this topic of the authoritarian who proclaims his or her Christian commitment, the far-right Christian who hates his political opponent, the far-right Christian who perhaps is armed, the far-right Christian who perhaps lies about his political opponent. Unfortunately, our puzzlement remains. The only thing we can come up with is this beatitude: ‘Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy.’

We don’t know, being ignorant, but the spirit of this beatitude seems far, far away from the spirit of those who threaten their enemies.

We would ask these people: How do you understand the Gospel? Is it merely words?